The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of statutory procedures and the impact of delay on discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

NAVIN SINHA, J.

The present appeal arises from order dated 15.5.2012 allowing C W J C no. 6749 of 2011. The Learned Single Judge held that preparation of a draft statement under Section 8 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called “the Act") without complying the procedure prescribed under Section 6 (1) or (2) of the Act rendered the entire proceeding null and void. Since possession of the lands had also not been taken before repeal of the Act, the proceedings lapsed under Section 3 (2) (a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter called “the Repeal act”) adopted by the Bihar Legislative Assembly on 11.8.2006.

2. Learned AdditioAdvocate General II submitted that the writ application filed in 2011, challenging the final orders passed far back as July, 1999 in Urban land Ceiling case no. 1 of 1998 was grossly barred by unexplained delay and laches. The writ application ought to have been dismissed at the threshold on this ground alone. The draft statement under Section 8 (1) had been sent to the respondent by registered letter no. 326 on 27.6.1998. No objections were filed. The final statement under Section 9 of the Act was also sent to the respondent by registered letter no.2631 dated 13.10.1998. No objections were again filed by the respondent. The notification for acquisition of the lands declared excess under Section 10(1) of the Act was again sent by registered post to the respondent. The respondent then filed objections under Section 10 (1) on 29.12.1998. It was granted personal hearing on 29.1.1999 and was also directed to file written arguments within 3 days which it never did. No objection was taken regarding non-receipt of notice under Section 8(1) or 9 of the Act. No objection was also taken regarding non-compliance with Section 6 of the Act. Orders were then passed on 4.2.1999 under Section 10 (3) of the Act rejecting the objections. As the respondent did not voluntarily hand over possession of the excess lands despite notice, orders were passed under Section 10 (5) of the Act on 5.7.1999 to take forcible possession. Possession was then taken under Section 10 (6) of the Act on 9.7.1999 by the Anchal Adhikari and Jamabandi no. 439 opened in the name of the State. A Signboard was put up on the lands declaring it to be State property. In the writ petition, the respondent had sought relief for restitution of the lands in question, an acknowledgement by itself for absence of possession by it. The compensation payable was assessed at Rs.90,000/-informed to the respondent on 13.7.1999. The respondent had adequate statutory remedies of Appeal under the Act but never challenged any of the orders. Recourse cannot be had to the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 without any explanation for not availing alternate statutory remedies. Reliance was placed on (2010) 8 SCC 110 (United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon). The State government adopted the Repeal Act much later on 11.8.2006.

3. It was next submitted that the respondent held excess lands. It was mandatory for it to file return under Section 6 (1) of the Act after it purchased the lands on 27.4.1996. No return was filed by it. It was not mandatory for the Appellant to issue notice to the respondent under Section 6 (2) (b) of the Act if no return was filed by the respondent. Reliance was placed on 1976 PLJR 134 (Mahabir Prasad v. State of Bihar). The respondent in his objection dated 29.12.1998 took no objection that no notice had been given to him under Section 6 (2) (b) of the Act vitiating the proceeding.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Shri S. A. Narain for the respondent submitted that if it did not file return under Section 6 (1) of the Act, under the non obstante clause in Section 6 (2) (b), “may” has to be read as “shall”, and it was mandatory for the Appellant to issue notice to the respondent under the same. In absence of such notice, the entire proceedings are bad for non-compliance with