Hon'ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari,J.
Heard learned Standing counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
This petition is directed against an order dated 23rd of May 2000 by which the appeal of the respondents under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 has been allowed.
It is urged that after preparation of a draft statement proposing to declare certain land as excess vacant land, notice under Section 8(3) of the Act was served on the respondents but he did not file any objection and therefore the competent authority passed a final order under Section 8(4) of the Act conforming the draft statement. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 10 were also drawn. However, a belated appeal was filed in April 1998 before the District Judge who has allowed the same by the impugned order.
It is urged that the Act was repealed w.e.f. 18th March 1999 and therefore, the District Judge did not have any jurisdiction under Section 33 to pass the impugned order.
The District Judge has recorded a categorical findings of fact that no notice under Section 8(3) of the Act was ever served on the land holders and further no proceedings under Sections 9 and 10 were initiated as the notices were still lying in the file and therefore he quashed the order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act.
There is nothing on record to show that such an objection was ever raised before the learned District Judge. However, where there is lack of inherent jurisdiction, the Court can always examine this issue and if satisfied, can hold that the order is without jurisdiction.
The scheme of the proceedings for declaration of surplus land is provided under the Act. Under Section 8(1) the Competent Authority is obliged to prepare a draft statement with regard to excess land and under sub Section 3 the said draft statement has to be served on the concerned land holder inviting him to file objections against the said statement within the time prescribed. It is only thereafter that the Competent Authority can pass final orders under Sub Section 4 with regard to excess land. Learned District Judge, as already observed hereinabove, has recorded categorical findings of fact on the basis of record that no notice under section 8(3) was ever served on the land holder before the order under Sub Section 4 was passed. Thus, all further proceedings would become void ab initio. This finding of fact has not been shown to be erroneous in any matter. The position which emerges is that if the Court quashes the present impugned order as being without jurisdiction, the result would be that it would revive a void order under Section 8(4). The High Court is not bound to quash all illegal orders, especially in the present case, since the quashing of the present order will result in the revival of another illegal order.
Further this petition is highly belated as it has been filed after more than nine years of the passing of the impugned order and without any sufficient explanation and, therefore, otherwise also, the Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
No other point has been urged.
For the reasons above, no case for interference is made out. Rejected.
Order Date :- 6.1.2010 PKG