BHATNAGAR, J.—The five writ petitions referred to this Bench involve a question of considerable importance in as much as the relevant statute is the expression of the anxiety of the Legislature to implement the ideals of the framers of the Constitution. 2. India is a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic. The Constitution of India secures to all citizens Justice, social, economic and political. The directive principles of State Policy in Part-IV of the Constitution embody the aims and objects of the State under the republican Constitution that it is a Welfare State. Those directives are implemented by Legislation. Art. 39 of the Constitution enumerates certain principles of policy to be followed by the State. For the economic uplift of the citizens it directs that the State shall in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood; that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good; that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. 3. India being an agricultural country, majority of the people are dependent for their livelihood on cultivation. Porior to the agration reforms the agricultural land was in the ownership and possession of a few and the landless persons had to toil at the fields of others. In order to implement the socialistic pattern of society and to bridge the gap between the haves and have not i. e. the landowners and the landless an act for agrarian reforms was enacted. In other-words, to abolish the Jagirdari, Zamindari and Biswadari system the Legislature of the State of Rajasthan introduced in Rajasthan by Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the law relating to fixation of ceiling on agricultural holding. By the Amendment Act, 1960 (Act No. V of 1960) Chapter IIIB was inserted in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 fixing the ceiling on the agricultural holdings (to be referred as the Act hereinafter). The object was to distribute surplus land to the landless and to remove disparity in holding of the agricultural land and to increase agricultural resources. The Act came into force on December 15, 1963. The object was to distribute surplus land to the landless and to remove disparity in holding of the agricultural land and to increase agricultural resources. The Act came into force on December 15, 1963. Chapter IIIB of the Act contains Section 30B to Sec. 30J Than, bogus and meaningless transfers were likely to evade and defeat the purpose of legislation. Sec. 30D therefore provided for non-recognition of transfers made after 25th day of February, 1958 for the purpose of ceiling area under section ?0C, with the exception of transfers enumerated in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-sec.(1)-Sec. 33D was inserted in the Chapter by the Amendment Act 15 of 1 970 w.e.f. 18 8 1970. It enlarged the scope of recognisable transfers, subject to their fulfilling the conditions contained in the two clauses of that section. 4. In proceedings under Chapter 11IB, the question of the validity of transfer of land by landholder came for consideration in a number of cases. The point arising for determination before the Revenue Authorities was as to whether in a proceeding against a landlord, whose ceiling area was in question before the Sub Divisional Officer (for short the S.D.O. hereinafter) notice to transferee was necessary. The opinion of the Board on the point was not uniform. 5. In the writ petition of Kesa Vs. The State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1351/75) the legality of the order of the Board of Revenue dated March 31, 1975 has been challenged. The Board of Revenue was of the opinion that there is no provision of law under which the S.D.O. is called upon to issue notice to the transferees and that the principles of natural justice were not attracted in such matters. Subsequent to the aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue certain decisions of this Court dealt with the question of notice to the transferees. 6. In the case of Nandlal Vs. The State of Rajasthan (1). the Division Bench of this Court did not consider notice to the transferee necessary and also held that principles of natural justice are not attracted. 7. The question of issuing notice to the transferee under Chapter IIIB came for consideration in the case of Bhera Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan (2). The State of Rajasthan (1). the Division Bench of this Court did not consider notice to the transferee necessary and also held that principles of natural justice are not attracted. 7. The question of issuing notice to the transferee under Chapter IIIB came for consideration in the case of Bhera Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan (2). The learned Judge distinguished the case of Nandlal (1) and held that notice to the transferee whose case falls under section 30DD was required on the principle of natural justice. 8. When the Writ Petition of Kesa Vs. The State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1351/75) came before the Division Bench of this Court on November 19,1979, looking to the importance as the question involved and also in view of certain observation made by this Court in the case of Nandlal V. state of Rajasthan (1) it was considered proper that the case may be heard by a larger Bench. The writ petition has therefore come up before this Bench. The point for determination argued by the learned counsel for the parties is regarding the necessity of issuance of notice to the transferees in proceedings under Chapter IIIB of the Act This is the question involved in the other four writ petitions also and therefore, they were also ordered to be put up before the Larger Bench along with writ petition No. 1351 of 1975 Kesha vs. The State of Raj. 9. As the common question involved in all the five writ petitions is the same, we propose to dispose them of by one common judgment. 10. In order to determine the question of the necessity of issuing notice to the transferee the scheme of Chapter IIIB of the Act and the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Government Rules, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules) framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 257 of the Act will have to be examined. 11. Sec 30B of the Act defines the term "family" and "person" with reference to the provisions of that Chapter. 12. Sec. 30C of the Act lays down the extent of the ceiling area. 13. Sec. 30D and Sec. 30DD are the important sections for determining the question of notice to the transferees. 14. 11. Sec 30B of the Act defines the term "family" and "person" with reference to the provisions of that Chapter. 12. Sec. 30C of the Act lays down the extent of the ceiling area. 13. Sec. 30D and Sec. 30DD are the important sections for determining the question of notice to the transferees. 14. Sec. 30D imposes restriction upon transfers after 25.2.1958 other than those falling within the ambit of a clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section(l). The portion of the section relevant for the present purpose reads as under : 30D CERTAIN TRANSFERS NOT TO BE RECOGNISED FOR FIXING CEILING AREA UNDER SECTION 30C. (1) For the purpose of determining the ceiling area in relation to a person under section 30C, any voluntary transfer effected by him on or after the 25th day of February, 1958 otherwise than:- (i) by way of partition, or (ii) in favour of a person who was a landless person before the said date and continued to be so till the date of transfer, of the whole or a part of his holding shall be deemed to be a transfer calculated to defeat the provisions of this Chapter and shall not be recognised and taken into consideration; and the burden of proving whether any such transfer falls under clause (i) or clause (ii) shall lie on the transfer; (2) .............. ...... (3) Notwithstanding the provision contained in sub-section(2), the transferee of the land referred to therein shall be entitled to claim from the transferor thereof a refund of the consideration money, if any, paid by him for such land and the amount thereof shall be a charge on the compensation money payable by the State Government in respect of such land under section 30 G. (4)..................... 15. Sec. 30DD makes transfers made up to the 31.12 1969, recognizable if they are covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of that Section. The relevant part of the Section reads as under: 30DD. 15. Sec. 30DD makes transfers made up to the 31.12 1969, recognizable if they are covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of that Section. The relevant part of the Section reads as under: 30DD. Certain transfers to be recognised-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section, 30D, for the purpose of determining the ceiling area in relation to a person under section 30C,- (i) every transfer of land not exceeding thirty standard acres made by a person upto the thirty first day of December, 1969 in favour of an agriculturist domiciled in Rajasthan or in favour of his son or brother intending to take to the profession of agriculture and capable of cultivating land personally and who had attained the age of majority on or before the said date; and (ii) every transfer to the extent as aforesaid made by a person before the first day of June, 1970 of land comprised in groves or farms of the nature referred to in clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e) of sub-section(I) of Section 30J as it stood prior to the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1970 and acquired before the first day of May, 1959 in favour of his son who attains the age of majority on or before the first day of the aforementioned dates shall also be recognised. Explanalion-1. The expression "agriculturist" in this section shall mean a person who earns his livelihood wholly or mainly from agriculture and cultivates land by his own labour or by the labour of any member of his family or alongwith such labour as aforesaid with the help of hired labour or servant on wages payable in cash or in kind and shall include an agricultural labourer and a village artisan. II. The expression "domiciled in Rajasthan" in this section shall mean a person who permanently resides in Rajasthan since before the commencement of this Act". 16. Sec. 30E makes provision for maximum land that can be held and restriction on future acquisitions. Sub-section (5) of that section provides that all lands coming to the State Government by surrender under sub-section (2) or by ejectment under sub-section (4) shall vest in it free from all encumbrances. 17. Sec. 30F deals with the provisions of allotment of land surrendered under section 30E. 18. Sec 30G makes provisions for compensation for land surrendered under section 30E, and for rights in improvement therein. 17. Sec. 30F deals with the provisions of allotment of land surrendered under section 30E. 18. Sec 30G makes provisions for compensation for land surrendered under section 30E, and for rights in improvement therein. 19. Sec. 30H contains the provisions relating to encumbrances on lands vesting in Government under section 30E. 20. Sec 301 lays down exceptions of general character and enumerates the category of persons to whom provisions of clauses (a) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 30E shall not be applicable. 21. Sec. 30J exempts certain lands mentions in that section from the application of the provisions of Sec 30E. 22. The determination of the question which we are to deal with would require firstly, whether provisions of Chapter IIIB or the Rules make any provision for the issuance of notice to the transferee. In case the answer is affirmative the matter ends. But if the conclusion is negative in nature, then the question of applicability of principles of natural justice would arise. In deciding that point the important factor requiring consideration would be whether the provisions of Sec. I1IB of the Act and the Rules by necessary implications exclude the principle of natural justice. Chapter III of the Rules contains the provisions relating to fixation of ceiling on land. Rule 9 provides for declarations to be filed by land-holders and tenants. The relevant portion of that Rule reads as under: R.9. Chapter III of the Rules contains the provisions relating to fixation of ceiling on land. Rule 9 provides for declarations to be filed by land-holders and tenants. The relevant portion of that Rule reads as under: R.9. Declarations to be filed by land-holders and tenants.In order to enable the Sub-Divisional Officer to- (a) determine, under section 30C of the Act, the ceiling area applicable to every person holding land in his sub-division; and (b) eventually, enforce the provisions of section 30-E; every land-holder and tenant, who was, on the 25th of February, 1958, or the 9th of December, 1959, or the 15th of December, 1965 or who is on the 1st of April, 1956, in possession of land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him, shall, within six months of the 1st of April 1956, furnish to the Sub-Divisional Officer of the Sub-Division in which his holding, or any part thereof, is situated, a declaration of his holding and particulars of his family in Form Ceiling IV; Rule 10 relates to the issue of notice by Sub-Divisional Officer calling for declarations reads as under: "Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 9, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall have power to issue a notice in Form Ceiling V requiring any land-holder or tenant who, he has reason to believe, resides or holds land within its jurisdiction in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him, to furnish to him a declaration of his holding and particulars of his family within such period as may be specified in the notice (not being less than thirty days from the data of its issue) and it shall be the duty of such land-holder or tenant to furnish the declaration and particulars whether or not he resides or holds land within the jurisdiction of such Sub-Divisional Officer. Rule 11 entitles the land-holder or tenant to receipt for the declaration filed. Rule 12 makes provision for the checking of the declarations received. Rule 13 provides for the lists and the lists and the statements to be prepared by Tehsildars. 23. Rule 11 entitles the land-holder or tenant to receipt for the declaration filed. Rule 12 makes provision for the checking of the declarations received. Rule 13 provides for the lists and the lists and the statements to be prepared by Tehsildars. 23. On the report of the Tehsildar the S.D.O. is to take action as mentioned in Rule 14, which reads as under: R.14-Action by Sub-Divisional Officer On receipt of the reports mentioned in rule 12 and of the statements referred to in rule 13 the Sub-Divisional Officer shall issue notice to the land-holder and tenants in Form Ceiling VII informing them of the receipt of the Tehsilders report and directing them to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer, on a date to be specified, if they wish to be heard before he (Sub-Divisional Officer) determines the ceiling area applicable to each such person. If a land-holder or tenant appears, he shall be given a hearing, otherwise the Sub-Divisional Officer shall, on the basis of the Tehsildars report and such further enquiry, if any, as he may deem fit to make proceed to determine the ceiling area, in accordance with rules 15 to 21. 24. The contents of Sub-Divisional Officers Order are to be according to Rule 21. Sub-rule (5) of R. 21 directs the S.D.O. to mention in the report as to whether any transfers were made and if so, on what date, and what was the total area and soil-classes and other particulars of the land transferred. 25. Rule 22 makes provision for claim by transferee for refund of consideration money. 26. Rule 23 obliges the Sub-Divisional Officer to give notice to the transferor and after hearing and disposing of any objections raised to pass appropriate orders on the application of the transferee under R22. 27. The words issue notice to the land-holders and tenants has raised controversy regarding issuance of notice to the transferee. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioners have strenuously contended that the transferees whose transfers falls within the exception given in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub section (i) of Sec. 30D and those whose transfers are to be recognised u/s. 30DD are entitled to notice because they are the persons affected and in case they are not afforded opportunity to place their point adequately, any order passed detrimental to their interest would place them in a disadvantageous position. 29. 29. Mr, Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners took us through the definition of the term tenant in Sec 5(43) of the Act and submitted that holder of land under a recognised transfer is covered by that definition and is entitle to a notice under R. 10 of the Rules. 30. The learned Government Advocate controverted these contentions and submitted that the term land-holder and tenant; in proceedings under Chapter III of the Act relate only to the persons whose ceiling area is under consideration before the authorised officer. 31 Sec. 30D casts the burden on the transferor to prove that the transfer by him falls under clauses (i) or (ii) of Sub-section(1). The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the Sec. 30DD is silent on the point. That, the non-obstinate clause of Sec. 30DD distinguishes that section from Sec. 30D and shows the intention of the Legislature to give recognisation to the transfers falling u/s 30DD and in case the authorised officer intends to make any injury in that regard that should be from the transferee whose interests are jeopardised by any adverse order regarding the land under consideration. That the transferee can put up his case before the authorities only when notice is issued to him. 32 On careful study of the Rules we are of the opinion that there is no rule obliging the concerned authority to issue notice to the transferee in what soever category he may fall. The consensus of the opinion expressed in various cases is also the same. 33 It has been emphasized on behalf of the State that Sub-section (2) of Sec. 30D read with Rules 22 and 23 state the position in which the transferee would stand at the conclusion of the injury and his interest is safeguarded. 34. The question of necessity of issuing of notice came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of land Lal vs. The State (1) and it was held that Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 and the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on land) (Government) Rules 1963 made thereunder do not provide for issuance of notice to the transferees. 35. 35. The learned single Judge of this Court deciding Bhera Rams case(2) distinguished the aforesaid Division Bench decision and concluded that what was meant by their Lordships was that the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or Rules made thereunder do not make provision of giving an opportunity of being heard to the transferee whose transfers have not been recognised under the law of the land for ceiling purpose. 36. Mr.Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view expressed by the learned single Judge in Bhera Rams case (2) is the correct view because section 30DD recognises certain transfers and the transferor is not required to adduce evidence regarding those transfers and if the authorised officer has any doubt regarding the genuineness of those transfers, he should issue notice to the transferee to prove that the transfer made in his favour is one falling within the recognised category of transfers. Both Sec. 30D and 30 DD deal with the transfers which may be taken in consideration in fixing the ceiling area of the landholder. Sec. 30D is in negative form while Sec. 30DD is in positive form Sec. 30DD only enlarges the scope of recognisable transfers by two classes mentioned therein. 37. By virtue of Sec. 30D the cases falling under two sub-clauses of sub-sec. (1) are to be recognised. The non-obstinate clause with which section 30DD begins, mainly relates to the date mentioned in Sec. 30D because by Sec 30DD the date of recognisable transfer is extended to 31.12.69. True it is that in Sec. 30DD there is no provision regarding the burden of proving the transfer to be genuine on the transferor, but the non-obstinate clause would not for the reason just mentioned, make the provision of Sec. 30D in that regard inapplicable to sec. 30DD. 38 The learned single Judge deciding Bhera Rams case (2) has concluded that the Act and the Rules are silent with regard to the notice to be issued to the transferee. 30DD. 38 The learned single Judge deciding Bhera Rams case (2) has concluded that the Act and the Rules are silent with regard to the notice to be issued to the transferee. The learned Judge however considered the necessity of issuance of notice on the principles of natural justice and opined that the principles of natural justice are not excluded and as such principle of audi alteram partem is applicable in the case and transfers falling in the category of recognised transfer and the transferees likely to be aggrieved by any adverse order being passed regarding the transfers made to them are entitled to notice. 39. In Nandlals case (1), the Division Bench of this Court had considered the point as to whether principle of natural justice is attracted in the proceedings under Chapter I1I-B of the Act despite the Rules framed thereunder being silent on the point and notice to the transfer is a must. After dealing with the various sections of Chapter III-B, their Lordships observed that it is manifest that the legislature by necessary implication excludes the right of transferee purchasers to be heard. One of the reasons given was that the transferee is entitled to be reimbursed and the transferor is bound to restore to him the advantage obtained by him. In Para-11 of the judgment, their Lordships observed that the motive behind the present Act is to ensure equitable distribution of agricultural land for securing the object that the ownership and control of material resources of the community are so distributed, as best to observe the common good, as enshrined in Article 39 of the Constitution of India. With that motive in mind their Lordships held that the principle of natural justice cannot be stretched to defeat the very purpose and object of the Act itself In Bhera Rams case (2) the learned single Judge expressed that the principles enunciated in Nandlals case (1) were in view of the circumstances of that case and do not apply to recognised transfers. We are unable to agree with the learned single judge for the reason that in Nand Lals case (1) the observations regarding the application of the principle of natural justice are in generic sense and therefore cannot be restricted to the transfers u/s. 30D of the Act only. 40. We are unable to agree with the learned single judge for the reason that in Nand Lals case (1) the observations regarding the application of the principle of natural justice are in generic sense and therefore cannot be restricted to the transfers u/s. 30D of the Act only. 40. The learned Judge in Bhera Rams case(2) held that the principles of natural justice are not excluded by necessary implication in the proceedings under Chapter IlI-B and the Rules framed under the Act and referred to R. 14 of the Rules. According to his Lordship the word "such further inquiry if any as he may deem fit to make" occurring in that Rule empower the S.D.O. to make any sort of inquiry from and person From the observation the argument is built up before us that it should be taken to mean that if the S.D.O. considers necessary he may issue notice to the transferee. There is no quarrel on the point that the S.D.O. has been vested with wide powers to make inquiry from any person in whatever manner he may deem fit, in order to ascertain whether the declaration filed by the landlord is correct or not. If the circumstances so require the S.D.O. can make inquiry from the transferee regarding the transfer made to him in order to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the transfer is genuine and should be recognised or it is sham, bogus and meaningless and has been effected simply to defeat the purpose of the Act but that does not oblige the S.D.O. to call the transferee to put up his case. 41. It is pertinent to note that a transfer effected upto 1st day of December 1969, would not in all cases become a recognised transfer. It would rather be so subject to the conditions mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) of Sec. 30DD being fulfilled. Whether those conditions are fulfilled or not is to be proved by the transferor who wants to take advantage out of it in getting his ceiling area fixed. The matter is between the State and the transferor whose ceiling area is in question. Simply because a third person may be affected by an order of the authorised officer, it cannot be said that third person is a necessary party to the proceedings. The matter is between the State and the transferor whose ceiling area is in question. Simply because a third person may be affected by an order of the authorised officer, it cannot be said that third person is a necessary party to the proceedings. The transfer is recognised only when the transferor satisfies the authorised officer that the transfer out of the land under consideration before him is recognisable according to clauses (i) and (ii) of Sec. 30DD. It is for the transferor to prove the legality of the transfer. The S.D.O. would decide the matter in view of the declaration of the transferor and the attendant circumstances of the case. 42. The statute is the formal expression of the will of the Legislature. Necessary amendments in the same from time to time denote the anxiety of the Legislature to bring a revolutionary change in improving the condition of the landless persons. The idea behind was to do away with the concentration of wealth of agricultural soil in the hands of a few and to distribute it amongst the landless persons so that the ideal of socialistic pattorn of the society may be achieved. 43. The learned counsel for the petitioners stressed that the transfer u/s. 30DD in order to be valid requires the transferee to be a landless person and as such the object of the reformatory act is achieved. The submission has substance but it is noteworthy that unless transferor satisfies that the transfer falls within the ambit of Sec 30DD, it cannot be said to be recognised transfer and the transferee cannot as of right claim notice. 44. Mr. Mehta and Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out certain contingencies such as a transferor not taking interest in the proceedings the transferor dying and his legal representatives leaving the matter to the will of the authorised officer without making efforts to satisfy him about the legality of the transfer; proper opportunity not being afforded to the transferor or he not being in a position to bring on record the relevant evidence or documents to satisfy that the transfer falls within the ambit of sec. 30DD; and submitted that in such circumstances notice to the transferee would enable him to safeguard his interest. 45. 30DD; and submitted that in such circumstances notice to the transferee would enable him to safeguard his interest. 45. It is important to consider that the person who wants to take advantage of transfer is the person the one whose land is in question and the fixation of ceiling area this way or that way would affect his interest. If he does not prove the transfer he is to lose. The interest of the transferee is safeguarded by the provisions of the reimbursement of the consideration he has paid for the land. The argument that the provisions of reimbursement do not apply to cases falling u/s. 30DD as corresponding amendment has not been made in Rules 22 and 23 has no force. The case of one transferee cannot be distinguished from the other in that regard and the Learned Government Advocate has submitted that the cases of the transferees under sec. 30D or sec 30DD are similarly considered for the purpose of reimbursement. 46. In view of the above discussion of the provisions safeguarding the interest of the transferee and the burden being on the transferor to prove the transfer as recognizable, we hold that the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder by necessary implication exclude the principle of natural justice to the proceedings under Chapter IIIB. 47. The scheme of the Act indicates the intention of Legislature that unrecognised transfers are to be ignored. That the transferor is to prove that the transfer effected by him is recognisable, As stated earlier Legislature was conscious of the interest of the transferee and made provision that the transferee is entitled to reimbursed and transferor is bound to restore to him the advantage obtained by him and that the farmer can claim reimbursement from the compensation money payable to the transferor by the State Government u/s. 30C of the Act. This being the Position of law it was held in Nand Lals case (1) that under the scheme of Chapter IIIB of the Act Legislature by necessary implication, excludes the application of the principles of natural justice regarding audi alteram partem in favour of the transferees and we fully agree with the opinion so expressed by the Division Bench of this Court. 48. 48. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties regarding the applicability of the principle of audi alteram partem and the principle of natural justice and to strengthen the view expressed by us it would be profitable to refer to the various authorities cited from both the sides. 49. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following principle enunciated in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi Vs. U.O.I. (3). "Although there are no positive words in the statute regarding that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature. The principle of audi alteram partem, which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard, is part of the rules of natural justice. Natural justice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action. The inquiry must, always be; does fairness in action demand that an opportunity to be heard should be given to the person affected. The law must be taken to be well settled that even in an administrative proceeding, which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable". 50. Their Lordships were of the opinion that the principles of audi alteram partem would not be frustrated if prior notice and hearing were not to be given to the person concerned before impounding his passport. At the same time the observations reproduced below are significant for the present purpose. "The audi alteram partem rule is intended to inject justice into the law and it cannot be applied to defeat the ends of justice, or to make the law lifeless absurd, stultifying, self-defeating or plainly contrary to the common sense of the situation. Since the life of the law is not logic but experience and every legal proposition must, in the ultimate analysis, be tested on the touchstone of pragmatic realism, the audi alteram partem rule would, by the experimental test, be excluded, if importing the right to be heard has the effect of paralysing the administrative process or the need for promptitude or the urgency of the situation so demands". 51. Mr. Mehta also referred to the case of State of Punjab Vs. 51. Mr. Mehta also referred to the case of State of Punjab Vs. Gudial Singh (4) wherein it has been observed as under:- "It is fundamental that compulsory taking of a mans property is a serious matter and the smaller the man the more serious the matter. Hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable and pre-emptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons". 52. It was further held that save in real urgency where public interest does not brook even the minimum time needed to give a hearing, land acquisition authorities should not, having regard to Arts. 14 (and 19), burke an enquiry under S.17 of the Act. The observations were made in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Government had sought to acquire particular land for establishing a grain market, then gave it up and selected another piece of land but ultimately acquisition of the latter was declared malafide by the High Court and seven years thereafter the Government again sought to acquire the same land under emergency powers under s.17. In such peculiar circumstances invoking of that power was not held to be justified. 53. The case of S.L. Kapoor. vs. Jagmohan(5) related to the supersession of the New Delhi Municipal Committee by the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi. The order was held to be vitiated because of the authority failing to observe principle of audi alteram partem. Sec. 238 (1) of the Punjab Municipal Act contemplated and required that an opportunity should be given to the committee before an order of supersession is passed. The question arose whether in a case where non-observance of principle of natural justice has not prejudiced the case of the party concerned, the order should be vitiated. It was held as under:- "The principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It will come from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced. Because of the failure to observe the principle of audi alteram partem the order of the Lt. Governor was superseded". 54. It will come from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced. Because of the failure to observe the principle of audi alteram partem the order of the Lt. Governor was superseded". 54. The enactment relating to ceiling of agricultural land is the expression of the desire of Legislature to bring revolutionary change in the financial status of the poor masses and therefore, Legislature by necessary implications excluded the principle of audi alteram partem. The purpose of the legislature is likely to be frustrated if notices are issued to the transferees. Because in that case proceedings are bound to become intricate, complicate and lengthy. 55. In view of the above discussion, we arrive at the conclusion that there is no provision in Chapter III B or the Rules framed under the Act for issuing notice to the transferees. The Act and the Rules framed thereunder by necessary implication exclude principle of natural justice in proceedings under Chapter III B of the Act and as such the transferees cannot claim notice in ceiling proceedings under Chapter III B of the Act. 56. Consequently, all the five writ petitions are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case costs are made easy.