Non-compliance with the proviso of Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 requires the setting aside of the order.

1. - In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order Anx.5 on the ground that despite the application Ex.2, the No Objection Certificate, by which Nand Lal, the owner of the land in question, was allowed to sell the land in dispute to the petitioner, the State Government cancelled the No Objection Certificate obtained by Nand Lal, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to put up his case before the concerned authority who passed the order Anx.5. This has not been disputed that the petitioner is a person affected by any order passed under section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and compliance of the proviso of Section 34 is imperative before passing an order under that section.

2. The order Anx.5 has not been passed after giving an opportunity, what to talk of reasonable opportunity, to the petitioner and deserves to be, set aside.

3. Certain other points have been raised in the writ petition. But in view of the fact that die writ petition has been allowed on the ground of non-compliance of the proviso to Section 34 of die Act, we do not feel inclined to consider other points.

4. The writ petition is allowed, the order Anx.5 is set aside. This order will not come in the way of the State Government to proceed under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling or Regulation) Act, 1976, if it so chooses, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard in the. matter to the petitioner.Petition allowed.

*******