A transferee of land subject to proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has the right to challenge the order of the competent authority and raise the objections taken by the transferor regarding the choice given by the transferor for the acquisition of surplus land.

( 1 ) THE present writ petition arises out of proceedings under the Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Dr. Smt. Jagjit Kaur owned and held property No. 3a, 3416 sq. Smt. Jagjit Kaur filed a return under Sec. 6 of the Act in the year 1976. A draft statement under Sec. 8 (4) of the Act was issued on 15-10-77 whereby it was proposed to acquire 1416 sq. M. of the land as being surplus. At the instance of the landholder Jagjit Kaur, the said order was set aside and she was afforded an opportunity to file objection. After taking into consideration the objections filed by Smt. Jagjit Kaur the competent Authority held by order dated 23-1-78 that Smt. Kaur was holding 1416 sq. m. of the land in excess of the ceiling limit, Aggrieved by that order Smt. Kaur filed an appeal No. 73 of 1978. The order passed by the competent Authority was set aside and it was held that Smt. Kaur was not possessed of any excess vacant land. The State filed a writ petition before the High Court which too was dismissed. The State further preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court and consequent upon the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in L. J. Johnsons case, the case was directed to be reopened.

( 4 ) AFTER the decision of the Supreme Court notices were issued by the Competent Authority to secure presence of Smt. Jagjit Kaur. The notice dated 19-12-83 was received by her daughter but nobody filed any objection. Again a notice was sent to her at the address as given by the land holder and the notice was accepted by one Sri Anand. As no objection was filed that matter proceeded ex parte and the competent Authority again declared an area of 4. 6 sq,m. as excess vacant land by order dated 6-7-86.

( 5 ) IT appears that during the said proceedings Smt. Jagjit Kaur had executed various sale-deeds in favour of various persons. On 4-1-84 she transferred an area of 670 sq. yard in favour of Kashi Ram, the petitioner, for a consideration of Rs. 49800. 00. The sale deed was registered the same day.

( 6 ) SMT. Jagjit Kaur, the landholder did not file any appeal against the order of the Competent Authority dated 6-1-86. The petitioner who was a transferee from Smt. Jagjit Kaur filed Ceiling appeal No. 155 of 1989 before the District Judge Dehradun. The District Judge Dehradun dismissed the appeal by order dated 8-1-91. He held that the petitioner had no right to challenge the order of the competent authority and the sale deed could not be executed without prior permission as required under Section 27 of the Act. He further held that till the proceedings under the Act were made final and choice of the landholder had been finally accepted Smt. Kaur was not legally entitled to effect the sales. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Competent Authority and the Distt. Judge.

( 7 ) THE petitioner did not urge that the area which was sought to be declared as vacant land was erroneously calculated. He conceded that the area declared as excess vacant land to the extent of 1416 sq. m. was correct in view of the decision in L. J. Johnsons case as decided by the Supreme Court. He, however, urged that Smt. Jagjit Kaur had clearly expressed her choice in respect of the excess vacant land. She had indicated that the surplus land be taken from the back portion of the property that is, on the eastern side subject to carving out Rasta from the road on the back portion. The said choice should be taken into consideration. Smt. Jagjit Kaur had filed an appeal declaring the land as excess vacant. Her appeal was allowed and the order was affirmed in the writ petition by the High Court. It was only by the Honble Supreme Court in view of L. J. Johnsons case that the matter was remanded. After the said remand the choice was to be considered ag