STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. FATESINH JADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Special Civil Application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner - State of Gujarat, challenging the impugned order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal" for convenience) in Review Appeal No.48 of 1998 dtd.22/3/1999, by which the tribunal has partly allowed the said review appeal and has not only quashed and set aside the order passed by the Competent Authority, Vadodara dtd.29/11/1982 (after a period of 17 years and on the last days of the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the ULC Act" for short), which came to be repealed w.e.f. 30/3/1999), but the Tribunal also quashed and set aside the order passed by the coordinate tribunal in Appeal/Vadodara No.38 of 1999 under section 33 of the ULC Act, by which the tribunal dismissed the said appeal confirming the order passed by the Competent Authority, Vadodara dtd.28/11/1982 declaring 13,676 sq.mtrs. of land as excess vacant land from the holding of the original declarant ­ original owner ­ Fatehsinh Mohansinh Jadav.

(2.) FACTS leading to the present Special Civil Application, in nutshell, are as under:-

(3.) PRESENT petition is opposed by Mr.Navin Pahwa, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents by submitting that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned tribunal has not committed any error and/or illegality in partly allowing the appeal preferred by the contesting respondents herein and quashing and setting aside the order passed by the competent authority and remanding the case to the competent authority and to decide Form/Declaration after giving adequate opportunity to them. It is submitted that as it was found that the land bearing Survey Nos.391 and 392, situated at village Kapurai belonged to father of the declarant as a protected tenant and therefore,as such it can be said to be ancestral property and all the heirs of the original declarant were having their equal share and therefore, their rights were also required to be considered and therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned tribunal in quashing and setting aside the order passed by the competent authority in remanding the matter.