https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187489 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. en-us Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:21:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187489 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187489