JUDGMENT The petitioners, who are agriculturist of village Bhilai have challenged the order (Annexure C) passed by the State Government under action 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976. The Competent Authority Durg under the Urban land (Ceiling and regulations) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') initiated proceedings against the petitioners in Ceiling Case No. 815-A/90 (c) (i) of 1977-78 in respect of the agricultural land held by the petitioners. The petitioners filed their return in the said case challenging the tenability of the proceedings on various grounds. The Competent Authority by order dated 31st December, 1979 (Annexure a) took the view that Master Plan for the land situated at Bhilai is yet to be published and that section 172 (7) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code was not effective and, therefore, directed the case to be filed with the observations that the said case would be reopened after the above conditions are fulfilled. Thereafter the State Government was moved to direct the reopening of the case in exercise of it" revisional powers under section 34 of the Act. The State Government by the impugned order (Annexure C) directed the Competent Authority to proceed with the case in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the same was passed without issuing notice and affording any opportunity to the petitioners in violation of Audi Alteram Partem Rule. It is no doubt true that no adverse order affecting any person can be lawfully passed behind the back of a person, without affording an opportunity of being heard which is commonly known as principles of natural justice or Audi Alteram Partem Rule. But in the present case no adverse order affecting the petitioner in any manner has been passed by the State. As said earlier, which is the case of the petitioners also, that the competent authority has filed the case on the ground that Master Plan for Bhilai was not published and section 172 (7) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code was not complied; but has reserved the authority to reopen the case after the aforesaid conditions are satisfied. The Competent Authority, therefore, itself, would have reopened the case without any direction in that behalf of the State Government. The Competent Authority, therefore, itself, would have reopened the case without any direction in that behalf of the State Government. The case against the petitioners remained pending and it was only temporarily filed for fulfilment of the conditions. If the conditions are now fulfilled, there is nothing to prevent the Competent Authority to reopen the case and proceed with it in accordance with law. No adverse order affecting the right" of the petitioners has so far been passed and, therefore, the question of violation of principles of natural justice or Audi Alteram Partem does not arise. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Mallsoor Ali Khan & others v. State of U.P. and others. (U.J. (S.C.) 1992 (i) page 214) has no application to the fact" of the present case as in that case concerned authority had adjudicated the case on merit" without giving other heirs and legal representatives an opportunity of being heard in violation of Rule of natural justice. In the result, the petition fails and is herby dismissed but without any order as to cost". The outstanding amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners.