S.K.Mookherjee, J. - (1.) This Rule raises an important question concerning the nature and ambit of the option conferred on a person under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, thereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) The petitioners claim to be owners of 789.83 square maters of vacant land being premises No. 23A/391 Diamond Harbour Road, Block 'G', New Alipore, Calcutta. The Petitioner No. 1 filed a Return in terms of sub-section. (1) of Section 6 of the aforesaid Act purporting to retain the entire land. The Competent Authority under the said Act by the draft statement under Section 8 thereof, tentatively, allowed the said petitioner to retain 500 square meters and invited Objection to such draft statement. The petitioner No. 1 having submitted Objection, the same was disposed of purportedly by an Order, dated 30th August, 1979 (Annexure 'B' to the Affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondents Nos. l, 2 and 4 ). Consequent upon such order disposing of the petitioner's objection a final statement is alleged to have been prepared in terms of Section 9 of the said Act and served on the petitioner No. 1. It is to be noted, however, that the final Order disposing of the Objection to the draft statement had not been communicated to the petitioner No. 1 petitioners.
(3.) The main dispute, which has been raised on behalf of the petitioners, is about the refusal of the Competent Authority to allow the petitioners to retain land within the ceiling limit accounting to their choice on the ground that the nature of the land sought to be surrendered would not be useful for the State Government to serve any purpose. It would be convenient to quote here the relevant portion of the order allegedly passed by the Competent Authority on 80.8.1979: " Now they have come up with a proposal and given a sketch also. This shows that only a 'L' - shaped strip of land they want to surrender as the excess vacant land. This type of land will not serve any purpose whatsoever for the Government nor that this will improve the standard of their portion of land either. I am convinced this is a dog in the manger policy. Hence, the proposal is not acceptable. Prepare the final statement under Sections 9 showing the portion that was determined in the draft statement,";