1. Although the matter is appearing under the heading ''application'', by consent of Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing
for the appellants, and Mr. Sundarananda Pal, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents, we take up the hearing of the appeal itself
by treating the same as on day''s list. All formalities are dispensed with. The writ petitioners were the owners of a vast area of land. Therefore, a
proceeding was initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
2. The Competent Authority passed its order declining that certain lands were excess lands and the decision of the Competent Authority was
communicated to the writ petitioners under memo dated March 21, 1997.
3. The writ petitioners make a representation to the Competent Authority to re-consider its matter on the ground of pronouncement of the
judgment of Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. B.E. Billimoria and Others, and other subsequent
judgments.
4. Since the representation was not considered, the writ petitioners approached this Court with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
5. The Hon''ble Single Judge rejected the said application on the ground that the order of the Competent Authority was an appellable order and,
therefore, the writ petitioners were not entitled to maintain the writ petition without preferring the appeal.
6. We are of the opinion when there has been changing law during the pendency of the proceeding, justice demands that the authority should
consider the matter in the background of changed pronouncement of the Supreme Court of India.
7. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and direct the Competent Authority at Barrackpore, under the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act of 1976, to consider the representation dated December 28, 2011 submitted by the petitioners by passing a reasoned and
speaking order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners and any other person interested in the matter, within two months from the
date of communication of this order.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal and the connected application stand disposed of. We make no order as to costs.
