TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 980
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... different classes of land in his possession. The land holder raised many objections against the draft statement. He disputed the classification of lands and claimed three more units for his three sons who, according to him, were already major on the appointed date, 9 September, 1970 and further claimed an additional unit for his two minor grand-sons. He stated that by gift deeds dated 28 September, 1962 he had given 21.98 acres and 21.43 acres respectively to his two married daughters: 2.56 acres were taken in acquisition by the State Government for construction of an irrigation canal and 9.69 acres was voluntarily surrendered by him. He contended that all these lands (adding to a total of 55.56 acres) were wrongly shown in the draft state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is, however, the admitted position that the order to reopen the proceeding was passed by the Collector without giving any notice or an opportunity of hearing to the land-holder, Sarju Madhav Rastogi. 4. After being reopened the proceeding was renumbered as Land Ceiling Case No. 64 of 1982. A fresh draft statement under Section 10(2) of the Act was issued to the land-holder in which he was shown to hold 200.51 acres of class I land and 0.11 acre of class IV land. In the draft statement he was allowed four units and two additional units for the minors and the rest of the land was declared surplus. 5. What happened from this stage is important for the purpose of the case and we accordingly state the facts exactly as they appear in the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the plea of having been given in gift by the land-holder to his daughters. 6. The sons of Sarju Madhav Rastogi took the order of the Additional Collector in appeal and revision and being unsuccessful before the revenue authorities brought the matter to the High Court in C.W.J.C. No.7439 of 1989. Before the High Court it was inter alia contended that the Collector's order reopening the proceeding was incurably bad and illegal because it was passed without any notice to the land-holder. Consequently, all the subsequent orders passed by the revenue authorities were equally illegal and unsustainable. The High Court rejected the submission. One of the Judges on the Division Bench, hearing the case, took the view that having participated in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing illegal, about which there can be little doubt as this was done without issuing notice to the landholder, the subsequent orders passed by the Additional Collector are also illegal and without jurisdiction." (emphasis added) Nevertheless, the learned Judge held, the illegality of the reopening order would not affect the subsequent orders passed by the revenue authorities. The learned Judge observed that even though an order might be without jurisdiction the court would decline to interfere in case the setting aside of that order should lead to reviving another bad and illegal order. In support of the principle he relied upon a decision of this Court in Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo vs. State of Bihar, (1999) 8 SCC 16. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the Act and, if it thinks fit, to direct that the case be reopened and disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As held by this Court, it is mandatory to issue notice and give an opportunity of hearing to the landholder before any order for reopening a concluded proceeding is passed. Thus, where notice is not given the order has to be treated as illegal and, within the extended meaning of the term, as per the aforequoted observation of the Supreme Court, also without jurisdiction. But that does not mean that on that ground alone the subsequent orders would also become illegal, particularly when the petitioner participated in the proceedings, thus, acquiescing in the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector which h....