- (1.) HEARD learned counsel on both sides.
(2.) THESE appeals came up for admission and on consent are taken up for final disposal together. The petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 2958 of 2003 and W.P (C) No. 3325 of 2003 respectively are the appellants in these appeals. They filed statements under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. On the scheme of the Act, the statements filed under Section 6 have to be inquired into by the competent authority by preparing a draft statement in terms of Section 8 of the Act. Thereafter, considering the objections, if any, a final statement in terms of Section 9 had to be prepared by the competent authority. By passing such an order, the authority determines the land held in excess of the ceiling area by a statement given and becomes entitled to take possession of such excess land in terms of the Act. A person aggrieved by the final statement prepared under Section 9 of the Act, has a right of appeal, either under Section 12 of the Act before the Urban Land Tribunal of under Section 33 of the Act, depending on the nature of the order passed by the competent authority. In case of an order under Section 12 of the Act, the person aggrieved has a right of second appeal to the High Court under Section 13 of the Act Under Section 34 of the Act, there is a further right of revision to the Government in cases where no appeal had been preferred either under Section 12 or under Section 33 of the Act. Section 34 confers a suo moto power of revision on the State Government against the order of the competent authority in a case where no appeal had been filed.
(3.) THE writ petitioners approached this Court with the writ petitions when notices were issued to them by the State Government purporting to withdraw the statements filed by them before the competent authority for consideration by the Government itself. Ostensibly the reason given for such withdrawal was the long pendency of a large number of statements filed under Section 6, before the various competent authorities. The petitioners challenged these notices on the ground that the State Government was only a revisional authority conferred with the power under Section 34 of Act having jurisdiction to consider the revision suo moto or otherwise against any final statement prepared by the competent authority and that power did not extend to the exercise original jurisdiction to prepare a draft statement or a final statement after hearing objections of the statement giver. Even otherwise, it was submitted that the power of revision was confined to see to the legality and propriety of any order passed by the competent authority or to rectify a defect or to ensure the regularity of procedure to be adopted by the competent authority. On behalf of the State it was contended by the learned Government counsel that when there exists a power of suo moto revision in the State Government to consider the legality and propriety of any order passed by the competent authority or to scrutinize the regularity of the procedure adopted and to pass any order that it may deem fit, it had also the implied power to withdraw the original proceeding from the competent authority and try it. We are not in a position to agree with this submission. The power of revision, either on motion by a part or suo moto, has always been understood to be confined to considering the legality or regularity of an order made by the original authority or the appellate authority depending on the scheme of the Act and it cannot be understood as conferring an original power on the revisional authority itself to determine the ceiling area of a statements giver under the Act and to prepare a final statement. We are not shown any authority for this position that the power of revision would include the power to pass an original order after withdrawing the original proceeding itself.;