RANI DEVI GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. The petitioner has changed the order of the State Government passed under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 by which it was directed that fresh notice be issued to the petitioner, under Section 8 (3) of the Act. It is apparent from the records that the competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regula tion) Act by order dated 30-4-1977 found that the petitioner is not possessed of excess land no action is therefore required. The petitioner in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition specially stated that in 1987 the petitioner got the plan sanctioned from the Kanpur Development Authority for construction of hotel building in the land in question in pursuance of the said sanction. The petitioner constructed a hotel building after spending Rs. 15 lacs approximately and the said hotel is running since 1983 and the State Govern ment granted licence for running the same. The hotel building has been assessed tax by the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika and Corporation tax are being paid regularly.

(2.) BY the order dated 5-6-1987 the States Government exercising the revisional powers cancelled the order passed by the competent authority and directed to initiate fresh proceeding after serving the notice under Section 8 (3) of the said Act.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge in the judgment (supra) considered the question of limitation under Section 35 of the Act itself and it was said that a revision entertained after 4 years although no limitation is prescribed was bad in law. THE revision should have been filed with a reasonable period of 90 days. This observation was made relying on decision reported in Sher Ali v. S. K. Masud, AIR 1959 Cal 458, where the question of limitation of filing revision under Section 439, Cr. P. C. was considered. At that time there was no prescribed period of limitation and it was held that a revision should have been filed within a reasonable time. THE writ petition deserves to be allowed on both the grounds as the order of the State Government was bad in law passed without notice to the petitioner and also on the ground that it was passed after great delay of about 10 years from the date of the original order, without any justification or explanation for the delay. THE writ petition is allowed. THE order dated 5th July, 1987 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) is quashed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. .