1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. W.P.NO.3105 OF 2008. Pradip Sharma and Ors. ..vs.. Kailash Ramaji Bodhane and ors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.N.B.Bargat, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.A.G.Gharote, Adv. for resp.no.1 to 4. Mr.K.S.Dhote,AGP for respondent no.5. Coram: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. Dated : 27th APRIL, 2009. 1. This writ petition has bee filed against the order passed by the Urban Land Ceiling Authority and Additional Collector on 10/7/2007. Field Survey No.86/1 is said to be recorded in the name of the petitioners as well as respondent nos.1 to 4. Respondents no.1 to 4 had filed a return of their holding with the said Urban Land Ceiling Authority on 20/3/2007. It appears 2 from the order that the Urban Land Ceiling Authority issued a notice to Pradip Sharma – one of the petitioners and one Bebitai Lende. It appears from the said order that these two persons did not appear. However, later on Mahesh Bodhane i.e. Respondent no.3 appeared before the authority and stated that he was acting for respondents no.1 to 4 and that their share may be determined. The learned Urban Land Ceiling Authority determined the share of all these four persons to be 4840 sq.mtr. and did not pass any order as far as rest of the land i.e. 7260 sq.mtr., on the count that no return whatsoever has been filed in that regard. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order that has been passed by respondent no.5 is liable to be set aside on two counts, first; it has arbitrarily determined the share of petitioners and respondents no.1 to 4 and secondly; that no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioners. 3 2. After having gone through the record, which was produced before the court, it is apparent that no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioners before the matter was decided. Obviously, there has been breach of principles of natural justice and for the simple reason the order needs to be quashed. 3. I am taken through the 7/12 extracts filed on record. 7/12 extract, which is relevant for the purpose is annexure IV, shows that there are names of Sharma and Bodhane families. 7/12 extracts, however, does not make it clear as to how much is the share of Sharma family and that of Bodhane family. In the absence of such endorsement on the 7/12 extracts, it was necessary for the Urban Land Ceiling Authority to have actually determined on the basis of the evidence before it as to what is the share of Sharma family and that of Bodhane family. The same having not been done, it is necessary to remit the matter back to the 4 Urban Land Ceiling Authority. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. The order passed by the Urban Land Ceiling Authority is set aside. The petitioners are now permitted to file an appropriate return under the Act before the concerned authority. The concerned authority has already observed that as and when such a return is filed, the concerned authority shall consider the return filed by the petitioners, afresh. The authority shall after return is filed determine as to which of the parties has what share in the matter, and whether the return as filed by them are correct or not and pass an appropriate order afresh. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned authority on 25/5/2009. JUDGE. chute 5