' In this case the only question on which the petitioner based his case was that he was not heard by the Border Area Allotment Committee at the time of rendering the impugned order dated 29-12- 1988, whereby the land purchased by the petitioner from Ghatmal was cancelled by it. In the report received earlier, it was mentioned that notices were issued to the petitioner but he did not appear.
An additional report was called for as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- Committee had pointed out that although the notices had been issued by the respondent- Committee but there was no indication that the petitioner was served at any point of time prior to the passing of the impugned order. In the additional report submitted in the Court today, it has been specifically mentioned that the respondent-Committee is not in a position to controvert the objection taken by the petitioner in the writ petition in that behalf and that he was never served with any notice for appearance at any stage during the pendency of proceedings before the respondent-Committee. It has been further stated in the Additional Report that the respondent- Committee is ready to provide the petitioner with an opportunity of being heard and dispose of the matter within such time as may be fixed by this Court.
2. As a result of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29-12-1988 of respondent No,1 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the case is remanded to respondent No,1 for decision afresh after hearing the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
' As the matter has remained pending before different authorities for many years, it is directed that the case shall be disposed of by the respondent-Committee expeditiously and without any unnecessary delay.