Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 437 (KAR)

SADASHIVA PARSHURAM PATIL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1988-09-22

H.G.BALAKRISHNA

body1988
BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 21-10-1986 passed by the Competent Authority, Belgaum Urban agglomeration and Special Deputy Commissioner, belgaum, and also against the order dated 7-9-1987 passed by the divisional Commissioner, Belgaum. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows : the petitioner submitted a declaration under section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 furnishing the required particulars on 23-8-1976 before the Competent Authority. The statement of the petitioner was recorded by the competent authority on 18-9-1978 After recording of the statement of the petitioner, later on, on 19-8-1978 the Special Deputy Commissioner, belgaum, who is also the competent authority of Belgaum Urban Agglomeration issued a notice under the provisions of Section 8 (3) of the Act to the petitioner which reads thus-"the vacant lands, particulars of which are mentioned in detail in the draft statement enclosed below are owned by Shri Sadashiv Parashuram patil of Wadgaon as furnished by him in the statement U/s. 6 (1) of the Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. All the persons interested in the said land are hereby called upon to file their objections, if any to the draft statement within 30 days from the date of receipt of this notice. If no objections are received within the time allowed, it will be presumed that the interested persons have nothing to say in the matter and further action will be taken as per Rules. "alongwith this notice as required under section 8 (3) of the Act the competent authority served the petitioner with the draft statement. ( 3 ) IN the draft statement it is noticed that there is a specific allegation under item No. 9 that the extent of vacant land to be surrendered by the petitioner is 46 80 square meters and it was in respect of this that the petitioner was called upon to submit his objections. However, the same came to be rejected and an order was passed by the competent authority to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to exemption only in respect of 2000 square meters of (and but he should surrender an area of 2750-71 square meters. This order was passed on 21-10-1986. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order. However, the same came to be rejected and an order was passed by the competent authority to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to exemption only in respect of 2000 square meters of (and but he should surrender an area of 2750-71 square meters. This order was passed on 21-10-1986. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the appeal came to be dismissed on 7-9-1987 confirming the order of the third respondent. ( 5 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order in so far as it relates to the extent of land to be surrendered by the petitioner is concerned is in material variance wiih the extent of land that is mentioned in the show cause notice issued on 19-7/8-1978 under Section 8 (3) of the Act by the competent authority. In short the contention is that the explanation demanded or the objection invited was only in respect of 46. 80 square meters whereas the determination of the extent of land to be surrendered by the petitioner is to the extent of 2750- 71 square meters. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such a notice and action taken thereunder is violative of principles of natural justice. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the explanation or objection sought should be in relation to the extent of land which the authority required that the petitioner should surrender and the determination of the liability of the petitioner to surrender the land in respect of a particular area should conform to the area specified in the show cause notice itself. ( 6 ) SEC. 8 (3) of the Act provides-"the draft statement shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed on the person concerned together with a notice stating that any objection to the draft statement shall be preferred within thirty days of the service thereof. "for the purpose of preparation of the draft statement the basis to be adopted is the statement filed under Section 6 of the act which has been subjected to such enquiry as the competent authority may deem fit. "for the purpose of preparation of the draft statement the basis to be adopted is the statement filed under Section 6 of the act which has been subjected to such enquiry as the competent authority may deem fit. The show cause notice was based on such an information as furnished by the petitioner and as determined on the enquiry conducted by the competent authority and what was determined on the aforesaid basis is that the petitioner was to surrender an excess area of 46. 80 square meters only. This no doubt was a tentative inference reached by the authority. If the authority had reached the inference provisionally that the excess area is 2750-71 Square meters, nothing prevented the authority from incorporating the same in the show cause notice that was served on the petitioner under section 8 (3) of the Act. The determination of the excess area in the final statement is totally different from the area indicated in the show cause notice issued under Section 8 (3) of the Act. ( 7 ) IN the light of the facts mentioned above, I am of the opinion that the show cause notice issued under Section 8 (3) of the Act is not consistent with the requirement of law and also is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice. As a result of non-compliance with the requirement of law, the order passed based on such a show cause notice cannot be sustained. I am of the further opinion that the impugned orders dated 7-9-1987 and 21-10-1986 are liable to be struck down as illegal. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed and Annexures a and A-1 dated 7-9-1987 and 21-10 1986 respectively are hereby quashed. It is open to the authority to issue a fresh show cause notice under Section 8 (3) of the Act and issue a fresh draft statement and take such action as is warranted under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of determining the extent of excess-holding of the petitioner in the circumstances of the case. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY this writ petition is disposed of. --- *** --- .