(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in respect of land bearing Survey Nos. 14 and 15 Part admeasuring 10590 sq.mts. in Rajkot.
(2.) The facts leading to filing of this petition, broadly stated, are as under:- Form No.I under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') came to be filed by Shri Vinod N. Doshi, as the Executor of the estate of Shri N.J. Doshi in respect of the land admeasuring 12090 sq.mts. in L.S. No.14 and 15 (Annexure A) in village Vavdi of Rajkot District consisting of different plots. The description of the land was given in Annexure "A" to the Form. In column Nos. 13 and 14 of the said Form, the following particulars were given:- Nature of Name and address of other interest in persons, if any, having interest the land in such lands and the nature of such interest 13 14 ________ _________________________________ Deceased Sunil V. Doshi, was owner Block 51-A, of the Jaldarshan, plots 444, Napeansea Road Bombay - 400 006. He is sole beneficiary under the will of late Nathalal J. Doshi. The probate for the same is already obtained on 11-8-1968. In Annexure "I" to the Form, particulars of land desired to be retained were given in the following terms:- Survey No. Extent in Whether mortgaged and Sub- hectares to Government or division No. and square Co-operative or other meters Societies or identification other bodies or number given Corporation as for revenue security for loan purposes 6 7 8 ------------- ------------------ ---------------- L.S. No.14 and 15 No Plot No. 14 857 sq.yds. 716 Sq.mtrs. Plot No. 17 880 " 735 " 1451 " Balance area from Plot No. 15 and 16 adjoining line of Plot No. 49 " 14 and 17 ----- 1500 "
(3.) The petitioner has contended that the land in question originally belonged to the petitioner's grand-father Shri N.J. Joshi who had executed a registered will in favour of the petitioner. The grand-father expired and a probate was granted in 1968. Hence, the petitioner became the owner of the land in question. However, the petitioner's father kept the petitioner under the impression that the litigation under the Act is pending before this Court.