M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, J. - (1.) CHALLENGING the order of acquisition of land belonged to the appellants under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter called as the Act) passed by the competent authority, the appellants filed appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed, and thereafter filed writ petition before this Court in CWJC No. 3347/1998R, which was also dismissed. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) THE short facts, which are relevant for disposal of this appeal, are as follows: The appellants are the descendants of one Nihar Prakash Ganguly, who, as a Karta of the family, purchased the property in question with buildings and orchard in the year 1912 comprising of 19123 sq.mts. of land. The said Nihar Prakash Ganguly died on 10.1.1980 leaving behind three sons - Nirodhi Prakash Ganguly, appellant No. 1, Arya Prakash Ganguly appellant No. 2, Nilay Prakash Ganguly appellant No. 3 and a married adult daughter, Mrs. Rita Chaterjee, as his heirs. Even before his death, the Act came into operation on 17.2.1976. So, Nihar Prakash Ganguly, as a Karta of the family, filed a statutory returns on 6.9.1976 under Section 6 of the Act regarding his property called 'Sunny Nook' situated in Ranchi. As out of the said property, more than 3000 sq.mts. of land was sold much before the commencement of the Act, there remained 15942 sq.mts. of land with the appellants and their father (since deceased). In the year 1972 itself, existing buildings of the property were given for rent by the appellants and their father to a private College, respondent No. 4. In the statutory returns filed under Section 6 of the Act on 6.9.1976, the appellants claimed that they did not have any surplus land which could be acquired under the Act as the land in question consisted of three existing buildings and orchard. Even though such statutory returns was filed even when the appellants' father was alive, no enquiry had been conducted in respect of the said statutory returns. On the date of commencement of the Act, the appellants were entitled to 5 units (father, three sons and one married daughter). In the city of Ranchi, one unit comprises of 2000 sq.mts. of land. The Act is applicable only in respect of surplus vacant land and buildings and orchard are categorically excluded. In the meantime, in the year 1988 the College authorities, the lessees, entered into a sale agreement with the appellants, the land owners, to transfer the building in the property including standing trees and structures measuring 100 Khatas for a consideration of Rs. 6 lacs with an advance of Rs. 1 lac. As per the agreement, the vendee, the College authority, had undertaken to obtain in the name of the vendors the necessary permission for the sale from the Government under the Act for lawfully conveying the land and assured that the final sale would be completed within three months after permission. Admittedly the appellants were absentee landholders since their permanent addresses were at Calcutta. Thereupon the College authority sent a letter to the appellants that since already permission for sale of 100 khatas of land was accorded by the Chief Minister of the State, the appellants could wait for some more time as formal office order has to be passed by the Government. In the meantime, no intimation was received by the appellants in respect of U.L.C Case No. 12/1976. Since the College authority asked the appellants to wait for the formal order of the Chief Minister regarding permission, they were under impression that U.L.C Case No. 12/1976 had not been proceeded. In the year 1997, the appellants visited Ranchi and only then they came to know that the competent authority, respondent No. 3, commenced the hearing of U.L.C Case No. 12/1976 in June, 1992 itself and within a few months, concluded the preparation and publication of final statement under Section 9, notice of acquisition under Section 10 of the Act and ultimately passed ex parte orders holding that there is surplus land and issued notification for acquisition and took possession of the land in question without serving any notice on the appellants. Having shocked to know this, they collected further informations which revealed that the competent authority, respondent No. 3, passed various ex parte orders on 22.6.1992, 3.8.1992, 17.9.1992 and 23.11.1992 as if the notice was issued to the landholders and since there was no response from the appellants, the final declaration had been made and in accordance with the final declaration, notification of surplus land was published and on 23.11.1992 possession was taken. All these things had been done behind the back of the appellants. The moment they came to know about the illegal order having been passed without following the provisions of the Act, they filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appeal was filed in time from the date of the knowledge since the order impugned were passed by the authorities long back. By way of abundant caution they also filed an application for condonation of delay also. The appellate authority, without going into the merits, simply dismissed the appeal on 27.4.1998, holding that the delay cannot be condoned. Thereupon they filed writ petition in CWJC No. 3347/1998R before the High Court, challenging the proceedings of U.L.C Case No. 12/1976 and ex parte orders passed therein as well as the order of the appellate authority and seeking for a direction upon the respondents to deliver back the vacant possession of the constructed buildings in favour of the petitioner -appellants. The said writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition on 13.9.1999 holding that there is no illegality in the orders passed by the competent authority as well as appellate authority. Aggrieved by the same, this Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. Mr. Vinod Kanth, the learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants, assailing the orders impugned, would make the following submissions: (A) From the perusal of the order dated 17.6.1992, 22.6.1992, 3.8.1992, 17.9.1992, 1.10.1992 and 23.11.1992 passed by the competent authority, it is clear that not a single provision of the Act was followed by the competent authority before passing those orders in acquiring 10000 sq.mts. of land and taking possession thereof. All the orders impugned were passed behind the back of the appellants by the competent authority with the connivance of the College authority at the instance of the vested interest of the Government in order to grab the land of the appellants, even though the land in question contained three buildings and orchard which are to be excluded under the Act. (B) The appellants came to know in 1997 about the ex parte orders passed by the competent authority grabbing the entire land without giving any opportunity of hearing to them, even though the appellants in the year 1976 itself had filed statutory returns stating that there is no surplus land in the property in question and the said land consisted of buildings and orchard. The orders referred to above only indicate that the authorities passed ex parte orders by taking the stand that relevant provisions of C.P.C had been followed for issuance of notice and since the acknowledgment has not been returned after issuance of the notice, the authorities felt that there is valid service of notice as per the provisions of C.P.C and passed ex parte orders without following the special provisions contained in the Act and caused grave injustice to the appellants in order to grab the property and to help the College authority. (C) Even though the appellants filed the appeal immediately after coming to know about the ex parte orders passed by the competent authority, the appellate authority, without applying its mind to the main cause, simply dismissed the appeal on the ground that it is filed beyond the period of limitation. In the same way, the learned Single Judge also has simply rejected the writ petition on the ground that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the competent authority as well as appellate authority. In fact, the learned Single Judge has called for the records and perused the same; even then the learned Single Judge, without giving any finding with reference to the non -service of notice, as per the Act or insufficiency of the cause shown by the writ petitioners for not having condoned the delay, simply rejected the writ petition without application of mind. Therefore, all the orders impugned have to be set aside and possession taken by the competent authority in pursuance of the orders passed on 17.3.1992, 3.8.1992 and 23.11.1992 has to be delivered back to the appellants who are admittedly the land owners.
(3.) IN reply to the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, Mr. R.R. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the respondent -competent authority, who passed the orders, would submit that the required procedure as contemplated under C.P.C had been followed and in spite of several notices, the appellants did not choose to file objection and therefore, the impugned orders came to be passed and consequently, it cannot be said that those orders are illegal. However, the counsel for the respondents did not give any reason as to why the special provision under the Act has not been followed.;