DALWADI MULJIBHAI MATHURBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgement of this Bench recently rendered on 22.1.2021 in the case of Heirs of Dec. Jethabhai Ishwarbhai vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. , Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners-appellants sought to raise certain questions of facts, which in his submission, would set apart this case from the boundaries of the judgement rendered by us on 22.1.2021 .

(2.) In that case interpreting the provisions of Section 10(5) and 10(6) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) (Repeal) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and other relevant provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, we had held as under:

(3.) Mr.Mihir Thakore, learned senior counsel, however, in the present case sought to urge the fact that the possession of the land in question was taken over from the land holders after the Order under Section 10(3) of the Act was passed in 19.3.1985 was not proved and the Possession Report dated 11.4.1986 Annexure-H on the record was signed only by the son of the land holder Dalwadi Muljibhai Mathurbhai. The said possession is said to have been taken in the presence of the son of Dalwadi Muljibhai Mathurbhai and other two witnesses on 11.4.1986 . However, Mr.Mihir Thakore, learned senior counsel for the appellants-petitioners submitted that even after the alleged possession was taken over, the Vadodara Municipal Corporation has given the Notices for recovery of tax to the heirs of the Dalwadi Muljibhai Mathurbhai upto 11.2.1992 vide Annexure R and even Town Planning Authority, Vadodara, gave a Notice dated 7.1.1986 to the said land holder Dalwadi Muljibhai Mathurbhai and his three sons Jitendrabhai, Narendrabhai and Vishnubhai for Survey No.822 and other survey numbers whose new number was 129, therefore, the learned Senior Counsel sought to urge that the possession was actually not taken over upto the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 and upto the cut off date 30.3.1999 and therefore, as per Section 4 of the said Repeal Act, the proceedings would abate and the possession should be deemed to be with the land holders only.