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

Headnote:
Non-compliance - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - The court set aside the order Anx.5 as it was passed without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity, as required by the proviso of Section 34 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the legality of order Anx.5, as the No Objection Certificate obtained by the landowner was cancelled without giving the petitioner an opportunity to present his case.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order Anx.5 was passed without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity, and set it aside. Other points raised in the petition were not considered due to the non-compliance of the proviso to Section 34 of the Act.
Issues: The legality of order Anx.5 and the non-compliance of the proviso to Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Ratio Decidendi: Non-compliance with the proviso of Section 34 of the Act requires the setting aside of the order. Other points raised in the petition were not considered due to the non-compliance of the proviso.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the order Anx.5 was set aside. The State Government was not precluded from proceeding under Section 34 of the Act, provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

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.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1987 Supreme(Raj) 958

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTKanta Bhatnagar, Sobhagmal Jain, JJ.Anupam Enterprises - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan and Ors. - RespondentD.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1804 of 1981.Decided On : 14-12-1987

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

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Kanta Bhatnagar, Sobhagmal Jain, JJ.
Anupam Enterprises - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1804 of 1981.
Decided On : 14-12-1987