AMBALAL PARSOTTAMBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The orders and action of the authorities, under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, are under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner's land, having an area of 12,385 Sq. Metres was declared excess under Sec. 8(4) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 on 3.1.1985. On 22.8.1985, the petitioner offered a scheme on the said excess land under Sec. 21 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act for construction of dwelling units for the weaker sections of the society. Annexure-'B' is the aforesaid scheme. This scheme was rejected on 15.12.1986 on the sole ground that notification under Sec. 10(3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act (for short, the Act) was published in the Official Gazette on 25.7.1985 vide Annexure-'C'. However, the petitioner, feeling aggrieved against this order of rejection of proposed scheme under Sec. 21 of the Act, preferred on appeal, wherein the order of rejection of scheme under Sec. 21 was set aside on 15.12.1986 and the case was remande.d to the competent authority for deciding the scheme/application under Sec. 21 afresh. After remand, no action was taken by the competent authority to consider and decide the scheme submitted by the petitioner under Sec. 21, either before or after 30.3.1999. The Act was, thereafter, repealed in the year 1999 and it was adopted by the State of Gujarat with effect from 30.3.1999. The Repeal Act No. 15/99 shall be referred as 'Repeal Act' in the following portion of the judgment:

(3.) The petitioner's allegation is that, on 20.3.1986, illegal symbolic possession of the excess land was taken by the respondent and no actual possession was taken. The petitioner is still in possession of the said land. It is also the averment of the petitioner that, on 20.3.1986, possession could not be taken by the respondent because, the scheme under Sec. 21 of the Act was pending and the same was rejected on 15.12.1986. Consequently, prior to 15.12.1986, possession could not be taken, and the said recovery of possession by the respondent is contrary to law.