HITESH SHASHIKANT DOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent, the original respondent has challenged the judgment and order dated 18th August, 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4991 of 1999. By the judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the said petition filed by the present respondent i.e. State of Gujarat who challenged the Order dated 26.3.1999 passed by the Tribunal constituted under Section-12 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. By the said order dated 26.3.1999, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the decision dated 11.8.1982 of the Competent Authority passed under Section-8(4) of the ULC Act which was challenged after 17 years of delay and allowing the appeal on the same day on which the appeal was filed and without hearing other side.

(2.) The facts in nutshell of filing the present appeal is that the father of the appellant - original respondent was the owner of 2200.06 sq. meters of land, who filled in the Form No.1 under Section-6 of the ULC Act and the same was processed by the Competent Authority and Competent Authority by order dated 11.8.1982 declared 700 sq. meters of land as excess vacant land and the final statement under Section-9 of the ULC Act came to be issued. No objections were raised by the appellant to the draft statement and only thereafter final statement under Section-9 of the ULC Act came to be issued declaring 700 sq. meters of land as excess and vacant land. Thereafter, further proceedings under Section-10 of the ULC Act came to be proceeded and thereafter final notice under Section-10(5) of the ULC Act was issued on 15.3.1984 and the same was also intimated on 21.8.1986 and thereafter possession of the disputed land in question was taken over by the Competent Authority on 16.9.1986 by drawing the panchnama. No objections, at any point of time, was taken/raised by the original owners. Thereafter, Notification under Section 10(6) came to be issued and, thereafter, after a period of 17 years, the Competent Authority by passing the order declared 700 sq. meters of land as excess vacant land, the appellant herein, who is son of the original law owner, filed an appeal before the Urban Land Tribunal on 26.3.1999, being Appeal No. Rajkot 19 of 1999 and on the very day on which the appeal was filed and without issuing any notice to the Competent Authority, the Tribunal by judgment and order dated 26.3.1999 allowed the said appeal by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Competent Authority in the year 1982 and remanded the matter to the Competent Authority by holding that the land in question was HUF property, which was not even the case of the original owner i.e. father of the present appellant.

(3.) It was argued by Mr. Vimal M. Patel, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant that when the Tribunal has quashed and set aside the order passed in 1982 by the Competent Authority on 26.3.1999 and when the matter was remanded to the Competent Authority for deciding the case afresh, the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 15 of 1999) would be applicable in the present case. It was further argued that as per Section-4 of the Repeal Act, since no order was in existence and when the case was remanded, it is to be treated as a case pending before the authority and, therefore, proceedings pending before the Competent Authority shall abate in favour of the appellant and whatever actions undertaken by the Competent Authority under the Act shall be treated as non-existant. The learned Single Judge, therefore, ought to have dismissed the petition on the ground that the proceedings have been abated against the appellant and prayed that the appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single be set aside.