1- I ‘ I.. - 00’ ‘ ‘I 41J 3 4z c: ore — — t — e —t —. — ., — a 11 t .eep4..a •*tr:/1’) C.Baj ..a —artg;, 31ce Cecsasci, rt.. a b tiS . e. — e • a lb. ttvt ‘aa L e cr .ztc so:s D :e t.Ets : ha.cr:, Outru :SuEt ur vill’.:e, eI,,n alut (.,‘) • c; ari,c, s as tj 9 9 °i 3 tt A •atbl’ i’ll tU 6, aerie vil,.,rc —a .03t, LCflt’lSl e.u’ ( :j. .. _:r:c r’ided -s ;r .,oart Craer ..t.26.,.9 (4. •••• r t, v,j I. e ZIv±s1o’il Cr ±ss1ot ‘ell-te .,tar’tv aectecr’ Is’i (d tV a a OX’ bt —. -- .C’ ±b2ica-r o($ cmpetaat!t .*at:Qrtt u’2dtr t’e Zrce: L .i jCeIiIi Yerlt.o’1) Act, D- :ierct, 3. c ‘t’ e o r ib a ‘ its oecrt £ to a.isl’ & U- I D€vt. reIn., .S.ra.i..Lr, t°-zrlore—l. .. •w...C,........ C E-r arI.G.3Enscrtsais, r V. ) b6’a*41 NaI6 JXLOM... 0 a — ‘tie a’it ?etlt±on is fIle] u/L.aE of 0 tin to nh Mi.s t’ar 4 r .1.0. 4 LabS dt’.l ‘ & An .3 be.ari’zg o. LG.!t. 6/7 a77 ‘tjl.l0.Ph. This ;rit PetItion cowinr on for hearing thIs day, the ‘irt tde te fol’.owliv:’ aaLIR F ard the iearn° 4 counsel for the etitioner rI. .L.acuxrye an the learnea Sover’r. ent Cmi ‘isel. a. tbis pttition, the ytitiorr has crRil:n€ed the orãers ceted al.4.199E passed Corties Ioner ty the Divisional as Arrellate author’tc unuer tne Urban Lend (ceiling & Zceg..lation) fication Act, l97fz and notiL doted 31.lO.19P4 oresed ty the res onAent o.2-The Soccial Deputy Corn issioner as Corpetent Authority. P titio’ter’e c’°e is 1 bet petitioier is an atriculturist possessinu two items of Itinas stusted in Peremainur village ii !.a’1!alore Talut. Nc at tea tiat L’ a lan s w n aseri” cultaral lcnas. Tte respoent 1o.c initiated proceedings u:ier section £(i) of t?e Act. Ihereu on the etitioier filed an a plication u’ider section 20 of the Urban land (Ceiling — Ind (e Urur & Regolation) Act, 1976, be:oe the Gvernent for rnt of exep— tion ad o1y sent a copy oi that ao1ica- tion to re82ondent ‘o.2. The oetltloner uses tre word “by way of objections” cc y of whIch has teen annexed as Anncxure—C to the wrIt ;etlt.Ion. P3t1tIsners further cvs€ Is tnt lend had been inherited t Ii and hIs brother crlf a:a h: of the totel exteflt of lend of 1 eoc 1’ ce-ts, c 1 C. cents telonto the peti tIoner aJ oth r O56 cents of lend e1oa to his brother as per il under wIch e ot toe rofert!. The 2d res onect decin€d to conIder n cxure—C as otje tions end coif iV d his earl er de ci don dc1r1 na t e etItIo icr to cc Ii oes 4 o of e’-ess iad. ice etitoi er hevin felt Egrtv, Th a The an cci a i he Ap clLcte AutVority disniesed the an. ec order- to te r1t etitI0n anelv order ft.l4lC(, ‘-. Ca notice beine isued, te coun 4 er e vIt sopcrt€d a IThvlt Las eea filed on heheIf of tt:G rEionfeats. In the ofjectlons I1Th on Lehe 1 f of he resncndent-s, it has Thea ed vThe 3 e reft ot c et es nerved o tTh netitZoner on 26J. f4. The no titicier dld not file a n obccticn as con e: piThed Jcw N1- . . tinder Sec.8(i) of the Act and as no objection wis filed, there was no option to the authorities bit to issue a final S tateflient under Sec.9 of the Act, It has been stated that the petitioner filed an application to the State Govt. under Sec.20 of the Act seeKing exenrntion only after the draft state ment bad been issuedby the 2nd respondent. 1t as the petitioner did not file any objections to the draft statement, the respondent No.2 proceeded to acQuire the land and issued notification under Sec,1O(1). Respondent’s case is tha the petitioner did not choose to file reply to the It has been stated by the respondents that so far as application under Sec,20 is concerned, respon dent No.1 could not pass any orders thereon and deal with those objections. It was for the State Govt. to consider whether to grant exemptior4w not eien then the copy of application has been submittea before the Competent Authority and that respondents do not appear to deny the filing of application under Sec.20 of the Act seeking exemption and the application was made to the Gort. and that copy thereof was forwarded to the Co!r petent Authority without filing any further objec. tions. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended Jb N&Iv . . 10. that as copy of application under Seo.20 which had been made to the Govt. seeking emmption evenLit appears no other objections was filed, aithority should have treated the saie as objections. In alternative, learned Counsel contended that atleast when this intimation was given to the Competent Authority that petitioner is seeking exemDtion, they shoula have awited and seen that it was filed within reasonable time. No orders so far has been passed under Sec,20 and it is pending as a result of in action of the authorities petitioner is being’ deprived of the benefit which he could have got under Sec.20. Learned Counsel ntended that in view of Sec.20 of the Act and application being made thereunder and no orders having been passed by the Govt. one way or the other, the passing of noti fication under Sec.1O(1) has an effect of renderin the application infructuous ineffective with due disposal thereof. In alternative, petitioner’s counsel sucmitted that the land had been inherited by him and his brother in equal shares and only o.6 cents dii come to the petitioner’s share. The authority should have decided this question, When no objection under Sec,8(i) has been filed indicatinc’ this fact that it was inherited from the mother and shared eaually on the brothers, there was no N cWv - . .6.. question of authority imagining these facts. Bit there is one thing very clear that the application under Sec.20 of the Act had been made ty the peti tioner to the Govt • seeking exemption free the Urbg Land (Ceiling end Regulation) Act. The state Govt. notil is also a party. It hastbeen clearly stated or averred as to whether application under Sec.20 has been disposed of or not. Petitioner’ a counsel in sisted that the application as not having disposed of, the authority should have awaited for that before declaring the excess area. If we read secs.8, 9. 10 and 20 together, definitely in ant cases where a person is going to deprived of his property and state &vt • has not disposed of appli cation, the authorities wee expected to await the orders of the Govt. and the Govt. was required to act expeditiously if it wanted the ceiling pro ceedings to be concluded at the earliest. The .A44w Qovt. cannot be allowed to actAhot and cofl on one hand by not disposing of application under Sec.20 seeking exemption aid the authority d eclaring the lend as excess. Noioubt, petitioner should have filed the forther objections. The petitioner might not have filed because he has filed Sec.20 application before the Govt. and must have awaiting the Govt.’s decision. Ma*o NJLXZ__ I •. 7.. In such circumstances in my opinion, it apoears just and proper to allow the writ petition as th appe1lte authority also failed to unierst and the impact of Govt.’s failure to pass any order on the application under Sec.20 and the failure of the Competent Authority to await that order. It is wl settled that no person is to deprived of justice,r he has to be denied benefit of laws nor be sub acted ijustice for the fault or failure of State instrumentqlities and authorities or their error. It is as much true of state and its instrumentilty as of courts and applicable to them as well. Thus considered in my opinion, the writ petiticndeserves to bellowed. rh order of the appellate authority has to be set aside. The order of the competent authority includingnoti fication unJer Sec.1O(1) of the Act hrs ot to be quashed. It is hereby directed that the appli cation moved under Sec.20 of the Act by the peti tioner before the State ovt. if it has not been disposed of, should be disposed of by an speaking order &t the earliest and in every case within four months from the date c comun±cation of this order and the order disposing of application I * . 8.. under $ec,20 should be comnunicated. to the peti -nst tioner and tne competent author1ty Theresrter, if the petitioner finds it necessary or is advised to file any objections, he may file ob jections under the Act and thrt ay be disposed of. Until cLispos. of the case on merits, the parties should mainta±n5ttusquo. The writ petiticn, as such, i5 a11owe1 with the abore directions. Let the direction as above in the nature of writ of mandamus be issued to respondents 1 and 2. JUDGE 4 b ss/ —