RAJESHKUMAR BHIKHABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . These two interconnected writ petitions are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) Special Civil Application No. 7404 of 1999 has been filed by the State of Gujarat challenging the order dated 10-12-1998 Annexure-'B' passed by the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal. In this petition, the averments are that the landholder Lalitaben Bhikhabhai had filled up Form under Sec. 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which was scrutinized by the competent authority, and after giving opportunity of hearing, through its order dated 12-10-1984, the competent authority declared 2963 sq, metres of vacant land as surplus land vide Annexure-'A'. Proceedings under Secs. 10(1) and 10(5) of the Act were followed and possession of excess vacant land was taken by the petitioner on 14-11-1984. Possession was given voluntarily by the respondents. Compensation was awarded under Sec. 11 of the Act, which was received by the land-holder. The excess land was of Survey No. 38, and under Sec. 23 of the Act, the surplus land was allotted to 22 persons belonging to poor urban classes. Each person was given 25 sq. metres of land. An appeal was preferred by the respondents after about 14 years on 11-8-1998 from the date of the order of the competent authority. This delay of 14 years, according to the petitioner, was condoned by the Tribunal without giving any reason. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the competent authority dated 12-3-1984 through the impugned order dated 10-12-1998 Annexure-'B'. It is this order, which is under challenge in this petition. It is also stated in the petition that delay of few months occurred in filing the petition because of procedural delays. The prayer has, therefore, been made for quashing the aforesaid order.

(3.) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed counter-affidavit pleading that the order of the Tribunal is perfectly justified and legal. It is also pleaded that, there has been undue delay in filing the writ petition, hence it deserves to be dismissed. Another plea is that, this Petition has been filed as a counter-blast to earlier Petition No. 5334 of 1999 filed by the respondents. The next plea is that, because the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not parties to the main proceedings conducted by the competent authority, the time to file appeal under Sec. 33 will begin to run from the date the order is communicated, and that the order of the competent authority came to the notice of the respondents when they approached Talati for obtaining copy of Village Form No. 7/12. It is also denied that, possession was taken from the respondents in accordance with law. Further, it is denied that the respondents have received any compensation. It is also pleaded that, no notice under Rule 5(2)(ii) of Urban Land Ceiling Rules was served on the respondents, nor draft statement under Sec. 8(3) of the Act was served on them. As such, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the impugned order of the competent authority and remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the competent authority.