JUDGMENT
A. Lala, J.
1. This writ petition has been made by the companies challenging the withdrawal, recall and/or rescind and cancellation of the declarations made and orders passed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in respect of the premises No. 27, Raja Santosh Road, Calcutta-700 027. The petitioners have come to know about the proceedings at the time of taking possession of the property from such authority. Thereafter, this writ petition was filed taken the point that without service of notice and hearing to the petitioners, no order can be passed by the Urban Land Ceiling Authority.
2. Factually the petitioners-companies are the holders of the land as lessees for a period of 20 years and till this date they are in possession. The suit was instituted in the year 1984 in between the landlord and the petitioners which was taken off the file from the High Court at Calcutta. However, litigations were proceeded with even thereafter and pending in the appropriate Court having jurisdiction. Pursuant to the settlement rent of Rs. 10,000/- from the month of January, 1989 was enhanced. Long before that Calcutta Municipal Corporation sanctioned building plan of the construction to the petitioners as lessees and dwelling units were constructed thereon. Therefore, in effect, the petitioners are the holders of such land are entitled to notice as per the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
3. Surprisingly, no notice was given. It is to be remembered that notice is required to be served for the purpose of preparation of the draft statement and upon hearing the objection, if any, to prepare a final statement and thereafter, acquire the property upon considering such land is vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit.
4. In the case of Nirmal Krishna Dutta and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in 1997 CWN 413, a Bench of this Court held that the thika tenants are the holders of the land and they are entitled to have the notice and hearing. In any event, there is no doubt that the tenants are also the holders of the land in respect of the Act in question. Even the rule under the Act has gone one step further by saying that any other person who has interest in the land is entitled to the notice.
5. Good, bad or indifferent I am not concerned to say that whether the scope of rule is beyond the scope of the Act or not because I have not called upon to say so.
6. The respondents even after initial appearance discontinued to appear. Today, nobody is present on their behalf. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by them. Therefore, at this belated state of hearing of the matter which is appearing under the heading as Old Adjourned Matter, fitness of the fact speaks in favour of the petitioners in getting an affirmative order. Therefore, acquisition of land, if any, by the petitioners be quashed and accordingly, declared as quashed.
7. The respondent authority will give appropriate notice to the petitioners to give reply and to proceed in accordance with the law particularly following the prescriptions under Sections 8 and 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and Rule 5 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rule, 1976.
The writ petition stands allowed.
No order is passed as to costs.
Xeroxed certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties within seven days from the date of putting requisites for drawing up and completion of the order and the certified copy of this judgment.
All parties are to act on a signed copy minute of the operative part of this judgment upon usual undertaking and subject to the satisfaction of the officer of this Court in respect as above.