Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

they disputed all the material allegations in the Writ Petition. In addition, the Respondents in para 3 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition pleaded some specific cases in support of their actions. According to the Respondents the Petitioner No. 1, 3 and 4 submitted return under Section 6 (1) of the ULC Act, on the basis of which the Competent Authority determined the excess land liable to be vested in their account and accordingly the draft statement was prepared and served upon both the lessor and the lessees of the lands in question. But no objection against such draft statement under Section 8 (1) of the ULC Act, was submitted either by the lessor or by the lessee and hence the final statement was prepared and published on the basis of such returns, so far as the first property was concerned. It was the further specific case of the Respondents, stated in para 3 (c) of their Affidavit-in- Opposition that in case of the second property, it was found on inquiry that the lessee in the land held excess vacant land beyond the ceiling limit and a draft statement was accordingly published and served upon the lessee. The lessee submitted an objection through an authorised representative who attended the hearing and after hearing him the final statement was prepared and served upon the lessee and thereafter the notification under Section 10 (1) of the ULC Act was prepared and published. It is further added that the application under Section 20 of the ULC Act was rejected by the Competent Authority prior to such hearing. Thus, the State/Respondents in their Affidavit-in-Opposition tried to justify the orders passed by the Competent Authority and impugned in this Writ Petition.

8. Mr Mukherjee admitted that the Petitioners submitted Return under Section 6 (1) of the ULC Act wherein some quantum of land was noted as 'vacant land', on the basis of which the draft statement under Section 8 and final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act, was prepared and notification under Section 10 (I) of the ULC Act, was ultimately published by the Competent Authority. Mr Mukherjee urged that there cannot be any estoppel against law and the principle of estoppel does not operate in a case where truth is accessible to both the parties. So, the Competent Authority committed a gross error in law by accepting the statement under Section 6 (1) of the ULC Act as conclusive, without any field inquiry to ascertain the real condition of the Suit Properties. According to Mr Mukherjee, no person should be deprived of his property without any authority of law as stated in Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. So, it was the legal duty of the Competent Authority to ensure that all the exemptions and benefits according to law, were given to the persons entitled to them. So, an effective inquiry was a must for such purpose. But, no inquiry whatsoever was conducted by the Competent Authority before taking the decisions, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. The gist of Mr Mukherjee's contention was that all the actions and decisions of the Competent Authority are against the legal provisions in the ULC Act as well as against the principles of natural justices. So, the proceedings and the orders by the Competent Authority, impugned in this Writ Petition, should be all quashed and the Competent Authority should be directed to re-look into the matter.

21. In the present case the Petitioners' plea was that they submitted their statements under Section 6 (1) of the ULC Act and application under Section 20 of the Act, under a wrong impression of the ULC Act which came into force just a few months before their submissions of such statement and application and by the present Writ Petition the Petitioners pray for opportunity to rectify their mistakes. So, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Omprokash Verma's case (supra) cannot be applied in the present case.

29. In view of the decisions above the proceeding initiated by the Competent Authority, Kolkata, under ULC Act, in connection with the properties involved in the present Writ Petition and the orders and notifications passed in the proceedings and impugned in this Writ Petition, are all set aside. The Competent Authority will compute the legal entitlement of the Petitioners and excess vacant land, if any, afresh, after following the relevant provisions in ULC Act mentioned hereinabove and other legal provisions as well, after an effective inquiry and pass fresh orders after giving the opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners, according to ULC Act and Rules. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.