NUTAN SAURASHTRA ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing an setting aside the orders passed by the respondents no. 2 and 3 at Annexures - B and Annexure-D to the petitioner respectively and also for declaring that the petitioner is not holing any excess land than the prescribed by the (Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as the ULC Act.

(2.) It is also stated that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm having two partners in the partnership firm namely Pranlal Tribhovandas Khara and Virendra Pranlal Khara. The petitioner firm purchased the land bearing Survey No. 401 admeasuring 2652-1 sq. mtr. situated at Umakant Udyognagar Plot No. 12, Rajkot and that land belongs to the partnership firm and that was for the industrial purpose to start the industry and to construct a shed. The petitioner firm filled in form u/s 6 (1) of the ULC Act. Before the respondent no. 3 it was urged that initially there were six partners in the petitioner firm and each of the partners is entitled to hold vacant land to the extent of 1500 sq. mtr.. As such, there is no excess land. The property of the partnership firm cannot be assessed as one unit and individual share of the partners of the petitioner firm should also be take into account and it should be assessed accordingly. The respondent no.3 held that the land to the e extent of 1152-20 sq. mtr.is in excess and ordered to vacate the specified portion of the land. The petitioner firm filed an appeal before the Tribunal wherein it was pointed out that one of the partners Pranlal Tribhovanas Khara had filed in his form in his individual capacity and his case was disposed of by ULC 6 (1) 2154 dated 8-9-1982 and by the said order, the land admeasuring 795-66 sq. mtr. has been included in his holding of the land in question of the firm. The respondent no. 2 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition has been filed against the orders passed by the lower authorities - respondents no. 2 and 3.

(3.) It is stated that when form was filled in by the respondent firm, there were 6 partners. But thereafter by the dissolution of the partnership deed dated 7-11-1980, the firm was dissolved and thereafter there remained only 2 partners and outgoing partners were paid a sum of Rs.23,064.00. One partner of the petitioner firm was assessed in his individual capacity as he was holding some other land. The land admeasuring 795-66 sq. mtr.. belonging to his share from the land in question has already been assessed in his individual capacity. It is also stated that in view of the provisions of the ULC Act, the same land cannot be assessed twice. As such, the respondent authorities have committed an error parent on the face of the record of the case on the ground that Section 4 (5) of the ULC Act the authority concerned is required to take into account vacant excess land held by any person. Where any partnership firm or union corporate association or body of individuals holds vacant lands or holds any other land on which there is a building with a dwelling - unit therein or holds both vacant land and such other land, then the right or interest of any person in the vacant land or such other land or both, as the case may be, on the basis of his share in such firm or association or body shall also be taken into account in calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person.