Sushil Harkauli, J. - (1.) ACCORDING to the record, the petitioner is the owner of land having an area of 28.22 1/2 acres out of which 11.79 acres is being used for the purpose of factory. A case bearing No. 87 of 1976 was initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 which has not been repealed in this State. The petitioner sought exemption under Section 20 of the Act but the same was rejected on 14.11.1986.
(2.) BY the order dated 4.12.1987, 6.36 acres of the land was declared surplus under Section 9 and a Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued vide letter No. 2351 dated 13.7.1988 for the said surplus and but the same was not published in the Official Gaze tin. Because publication of Notification in the Official Gazette under Section 10(1) and thereafter under Section 10(3) of the Act is necessary, therefore on that ground the petitioner, after 20 years, filed a writ petit on being W.P.(C) No. 4669 of 2008 which was disposed of by the order dated 23.11.2009 directing the Deputy Commissioner. Dhanbad to decide the petitioner's representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.1.2010 has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. A certified copy of that order has been filed along with this writ petition as the last annexure. In that order, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad has held that factual possession of the land had been taken over and apparently constructions have also been made on part of the aforesaid surplus land. The petitioner prays that for want of the publication of the Gazette of the Notification under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act, the constructions should be removed and the land should be handed back to the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad has refused this prayer and has directed that the Notification be published in the Official Gazette now and adequate .compensation be paid to the petitioner for the surplus land which has been acquired. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad has reasoned that there is no limitation for publication of the Notification under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in : (2007) 5 SCC 211 wherein it was held that the revisional power under Section 34 of the Act, for which no limitation was prescribed, should be exercised within reasonable time.;