JUDGMENT In this petition, petitioner is challenging the Order passed by Competent Authority, appointed under Urban/Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (For brevity the 'Act') on 17.4.1989 and the Appellate Order dt. 3.1.1989, passed by Additional Commissioner, Ujjain. Petitioner's contention is, that Petitioner had already filed an application under S. 20 of the Act before the State Government through Respondent No. 1 claiming exemption of the said land, for the reasons stated in the said application. The said application was still pending and no orders on the same were passed. Petitioner had also filed his Return of the detailed land held by him. In the said matter proceedings were going on before the Competent Authority. On 11.2.1981, this fact was brought to the notice of the Competent Authority by counsel for petitioner that in view of the pendency of petitioner's application, filed under S. 20 of the Act, these proceedings be stayed. This argument of the petitioner found favour with the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority sine-a-die adjourned the case, without giving any further date of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was under an impression that, as and when, the matter would be taken up for consideration, he would again be noticed. The matter was, then, taken up on 8.12.1983. Since the petitioner did not have any notice or knowledge of the said date, he could not appear. Proceedings under S. 10(1) and S. 10(3) of the Act were taken against the petitioner without notice to him. As soon as, petitioner came to know about declaration of surplus land, he preferred objections. These objections have been turned down, on the ground that petitioner should have preferred the same when orders were passed under section 10(1) and S. 10(3) of the Act. Appeal filed before the Appellate Authority also proved to be futile, who based his reasoning on the same ground. Petitioner's main contention is, that record maintained by Competent Authority, would show, that after the case was adjourned sine-a-die after the matter was taken up for consideration, no notice of the same was issued to the petitioner. The Court was pleased to direct the respondents to keep the original record present for perusal. The same has been produced today. I have gone through the order-sheet. The contention, as advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner appears to be correct. The Court was pleased to direct the respondents to keep the original record present for perusal. The same has been produced today. I have gone through the order-sheet. The contention, as advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner appears to be correct. After the matter was adjourned on 18.2.1981, no date of further hearing to the petitioner was given. All of a sudden, the matter was taken-up for hearing on 8.12.1983, without notice to the petitioner, on the ground that petitioner's application filed under S. 20 of the Act has already been rejected. After having gone through the order-sheets and after having heard the learned counsel for portion, I am of the view, that such a procedure should not have been adopted by the Competent Authority, when, the matter was adjourned and no further date of hearing was given to the petitioner. It was obligatory on the part of the Competent Authority to have issued a fresh notice to the petitioner for his appearance, so that, he could participate in the proceedings further. There appears to be deviation from settled principles of procedural law, which is otherwise required to be followed. Consequently and in the result, the orders passed by Competent Authority dt. 17.4.1989 and that of the Appellate Authority dt. 3.1.1989 deserve to be quashed and are, accordingly, hereby quashed. The matter has to be remanded to Respondent No. 2 the Appellate Authority to consider this aspect of the matter and, then, to decide the petitioner's Appeal afresh. Needless to say that petitioner would be given an opportunity of hearing in Appeal. Parties agree that they would appear before the Additional Commissioner Ujjain for further participation in the Appeal on 17.12.1988. With these observations, this petition stands finally disposed of but with no order as to costs. Security amount, if, deposited, be refunded to the petitioner after its due verification. The original record is returned herewith.