Mandatory notice and hearing are essential for reopening land ceiling proceedings; later appearance cannot cure an invalid ex parte order.

Reopening of a concluded land ceiling proceeding under Section 45-B required prior notice and an opportunity of hearing to the land-holder; an ex parte reopening order was illegal and could not sustain later proceedings. Mere limited appearance to seek time did not amount to waiver, estoppel, or acquiescence, and therefore did not cure the original defect. An order passed after the land-holder's death, without substitution of heirs or notice to them, was independently unsustainable. The High Court and revenue orders were set aside, and the State was left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a concluded land ceiling proceeding could be reopened under Section 45-B without notice and hearing to the land-holder; (ii) whether later participation in the proceedings cured the illegality of the reopening order and validated consequential orders, especially when the final order was passed against a dead person.

Issue (i): whether a concluded land ceiling proceeding could be reopened under Section 45-B without notice and hearing to the land-holder.

Analysis: Reopening of a concluded proceeding under Section 45-B required notice and an opportunity of hearing to the land-holder. An order passed behind the back of the affected party was illegal and could not be treated as a valid exercise of power. The absence of notice at the stage of reopening went to the legality of the very foundation on which the later proceedings rested.

Conclusion: The reopening order was invalid and unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether later participation in the proceedings cured the illegality of the reopening order and validated consequential orders, especially when the final order was passed against a dead person.

Analysis: Mere appearance to seek time did not amount to submission to jurisdiction so as to cure the initial defect. After the land-holder's death, no substitution was made and no notice was issued to his heirs, yet the authority proceeded to pass an order against a dead person. Such an order was independently unsustainable, and the supposed participation did not amount to waiver, estoppel, or acquiescence capable of validating the proceedings.

Conclusion: Later participation did not cure the illegality, and the consequential orders were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The High Court and revenue orders were set aside, the appeals were allowed, and the State was left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law under Section 45-B.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reopening of a concluded proceeding under the Act is made without the mandatory notice and hearing to the land-holder, the reopening is illegal, later limited appearance does not by itself cure the defect, and an order passed against a / dead person is independently unsustainable.

---