JUDGMENT
S.C. Pratap, J.
1. This petition arises out of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act’). In an enquiry under the Act, order was passed against the petitioners under section 8 thereof. Appeal therefrom failed. The petitioners’ application under section 21 of the filed on 20th March, 1979 was promptly dismissed on 30th March, 1979. Their application under section 20 of the Act was also dismissed. The validity of these orders is questioned in this petition.
2. Mr. Gursahani, learned Counsel for the petitioners is right in submitting that the impugned orders under sections 20 and 21 of the Act are unsustainable because no hearing and no opportunity was given to the petitioners in that behalf. Even otherwise, no reasons have been disclosed in support of the said orders save and except the cryptic ground of public interest. The High Court has in several earlier writ petitions consistently set aside such and similar orders passed either under section 20 or under section 21 of the Act. Most of these orders partake uniform character and regrettably enough many of these orders are in a stereotyped cyclostyled format. Though the proceedings involve and affect right, title and interest of citizens and persons to immovable properties, drastic orders having adverse effect thereon are passed in a manner uniform, cryptic and without any hearing as also without disclosing reasons in support thereof. The impugned orders under section 20 and 21 of the Act are vitiated by absence of hearing as also absence of reasons. The same, therefore, require to be set aside and proceedings remanded with directions as per final order below.
3. As the impugned orders under sections 20 and 21 are being set aside, it is but just, fair and proper that the order under section 8 of Act is also set aside because if the order under section 8 is made final, the applications under sections 20 and 21 would, by virtue of this finality, stand adversely affected. Indeed if there is an application pending either under section 20 or under section 21 of the Act, the said application should be first decided and thereafter (if occasion still survives) inquiry should be held under sections 8 to 11 of the Act. We are, therefore, inclined to set aside also the order under section 8 and remand the proceedings to the competent authority with directions as per final order below.
4. In the result, the following order is passed and on this petition :—
(a) This petition is allowed.
(b) The order dated 30th March, 1979 (Exhibit ‘F’) under section 21 of the Act is set aside. The order dated 2 April, 1979 (Exhibit ‘C’), as also the order dated 5th April, 1979 (Exhibit ‘H’) both under section 20 of the Act are also set aside.
(c) The proceedings under sections 20 and 21 of the Act are remanded to the State Government which will, after notice to and hearing the petitioners consider and decide the same afresh on merits and in accordance with the law and then pass orders with reasons in support thereof.
(d) The order dated 28th March, 1978 (Exhibit ‘D’) and the order dated 20th January, 1979 (Exhibit ‘E’) and the Notification under section 10 of the Act are also set aside and these proceedings are remanded to the competent authority. The same should be kept pending till the hearing and final disposal of the application under section 20 as also under section 21 of the Act. After these applications are decided, the competent authority will, after notice to and hearing the petitioners, consider and decide afresh on merits and in accordance with law, the proceedings under sections 8 to 10 of the Act and then pass order with reasons in support thereof.
(e) Rule is made absolute in terms aforesaid but, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs.