AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.—The petitioners in this WP under art. 226 of the Constitution of India dated February 13, 2013 are questioning an order of the Competent Authority, ULC, Kolkata dated November 2, 2012 (WP p. 34). The relevant parts of the impugned order are quoted below:-
Now, the fresh Final Statement may be issued showing 299.48 sqmts. of excess vacant land at Pre. No. 7. Braunfield Road.
It is mentioned herewith that the enquiry Officer took measurement of 220 sqmt. of the passage from the entry point to the garage and added it with the retainable area. But as per provision of the Act, this benefit cannot be given. So, that portion of 220 Sq. meter has been excluded at the time of Calculating retainable land.
The petitioners had a remedy of statutory appeal under s. 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. They, however, decided to file this WP without first exhausting the remedy of appeal. Their contention is that the order of the competent authority does not contain any reason.
Mr. Ganguly appearing for the competent authority has fairly conceded that the competent authority ought to have given reasons in support of his order that the petitioners were not entitled to retain the 220 sq.mts. of the passage from the entry point to the garage.
The competent authority held that under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 the petitioners were not entitled to retain the 220 sq.mts. of the passage from the entry point to the garage. He, however, did not mention which provision of the Act he was referring to. The claim is that the area is within the boundary walls of the building erected after obtaining sanction.
Since the competent authority was of the view that the 220 sq.mts. of the passage were not retainable, and against his order the petitioners were entitled to appeal, he was under an obligation to give reasons in detail why the area was not retainable. He was also under an obligation to give the petitioners opportunity to make their submissions against his opinion. I think it is a fit case for interference under art. 226. For these reasons, I set aside the impugned order, allow the WP to this extent and order that the competent authority shall hear the petitioners and decide the matter afresh, within six weeks from the date this order is served. No costs. Certified xerox.