BHANUMATIBEN D. SONI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions arise from the same cause of action. All the petitions are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) THE dispute is in respect of the land, Survey No. 85/1/2, situated at village -Raiya, Rajkot [hereinafter referred to as, 'the said land']. The said land belonged to one Dhirajlal Ranchhoddas Soni. The said Dhirajlal Soni declared the said land to be of his individual holding, as required under section 6 of the Urban Land [Ceiling and Regulation] Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act']. The statement filed by the said Dhirajlal Soni of his holding, including the said land, was processed by the Competent Authority under the Act. Under Order dated 24th February, 1984, the Competent Authority allowed the said Dhirajlal Soni to retain one Unit of land. The rest of the said land admeasuring 3,221.53 sq.mtrs. was held to be 'the excess vacant land'. Feeling aggrieved, the said Dhirajlal Soni preferred Appeal No. 689 of 1984 under section 33 of the Act before the Urban Land Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal under its judgment and order dated 1st October, 1987 dismissed the said appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the said Dhirajlal Soni preferred Special Civil Application No. 1010 of 1988 before this Court. The said petition was rejected [Coram : B.S Kapadia, J.] on 21st March, 1988. However, the contention was raised that under the concerned Town Planning Scheme, the said Dhirajlal Soni was allotted original plot no. 46 admeasuring 936 sq.m.On reconstitution, the said Dhirajlal Soni was allotted Final Plot No. 909, admeasuring 691 sq.m. Thus, he had suffered a loss of 245 sq.m of land on account of the implementation of the T.P Scheme. The Court, therefore, recorded that, '.if the petitioner is ready to let go the amount of compensation and if the petitioner makes a representation to the Competent Authority in regard to this difference of land, Mr. Hawa assures on behalf of the respondents that, the said representation will be decided within 8 weeks from the date of making of the representation. In that view of the matter, the petition does not survive and hence the respondent no. 1 is directed to decide the representation, if made by the petitioner, on the aforesaid point within 8 weeks. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision rendered in the said representation, he will be at liberty to take appropriate action under the law.' Pursuant to the said order, the Competent Authority under order dated 22nd November, 1988 considered the representation made by the said Dhirajlal Soni and held that the said Dhirajlal Soni held excess vacant land to the extent of 2711 sq.m. Pursuant to the said decision, the Notification of intention to acquire the said 'excess vacant land' under section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 6th January, 1989 and was published on 16th February, 1989.The Notification under section 10(3) of the Act vesting the said excess vacant land in the State Government was published on 20th April, 1989. Notice for possession of the said excess vacant land under section 10(5) of the Act was given on 20th April, 1989 and was served upon the said Dhirajlal Soni on 18th May, 1989. Pursuant to the said notice, possession of the said excess vacant land under section 10(6) of the Act, was taken over on 20th July, 1989 in presence of the said Dhirajlal Soni. Necessary mutation entry was made in the revenue record on 11th March, 1991. Under the Town Planning Scheme, the said excess vacant land was reconstituted into final plot Nos. 930, 939, 941 and 877. The land admeasuring 2011 sq.m of the Final plot numbers 930, 939 and 941 was allotted to the University Employees' Cooperative Housing Society Limited (then proposed) [hereinafter referred to as, 'the Society'], the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 845 of 1995, under section 23 of the Act. The possession of the same was handed over to the Society on 8th May, 1992.

(3.) SINCE the dismissal of all the three above referred appeals nos. 689/1984, 16/1988 and 48/1988, the said land was mutated in the name of the Government on 11th March, 1991. As recorded hereinabove, part of the said excess vacant land admeasuring 2011 sq.m was allotted to the Society and the possession thereof was handed over to the Society on 8th May, 1992. After the completion of the acquisition proceedings under the Act and disposal of the part of the excess vacant land as aforesaid, the said Dhirajlal Soni, his wife Bhanumatiben Soni and their daughter Partimaben Mukherjee preferred appeal No. 25 of 1993 before the Tribunal under section 33 of the Act against the order of the Competent Authority dated 22nd November, 1988. The said appeal was allowed by the Tribunal under the judgement and order dated 28th January, 1994. The Tribunal held that the said land was the ancestral property. The appellant Dhirajlal Soni and his wife Bhanumati Soni were jointly entitled to retain one Unit of the land, while the appellant Pratimaben Mukherjee was also entitled to retain one unit of the land. The Tribunal allowed the said Pratimaben Mukherjee to retain the land of Final Plots Nos. 877 and 941. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 28th January, 1994, the Society has preferred above Special Civil Application No. 845 of 1995. The State Government has preferred the above Special Civil Application No. 479 of 1996. The said Bhanumatiben Soni has preferred Special Civil Application No. 12639 of 1994. The said Bhanumatiben Soni has also preferred Special Civil Application No. 5883 of 1995 and has challenged the order of allotment made to the Society on 10th April, 1992.