KEKHASHARU HORAMASJI Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ADDL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs.

(2.) AS the vires of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation (Repeal) Act, 1999 were challenged, the present petition was placed before the Division Bench. At the time of hearing of the present petition on 06.09.2000, as this Court had upheld the vires of the Repeal Act, 1999 and the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners urged the grounds with regard to possession of excess vacant land, the Division Bench by order dated 06.09.2000 directed to put up the present petition before the learned single Judge by observing that if there are any points other than vires, the petitioner may urge the same before the appropriate learned single Judge and that is how the present petition is placed before this Court. Under the circumstances, this Court is not required to consider the prayer in terms of para 9[B] & [C]. Even the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has not addressed the Court with respect to prayer in terms of para 9[F] and therefore, this Court has not considered the prayer in terms of para 9[F]. The main contention on behalf of the petitioners in the petition is now with respect to taking over the possession of the excess vacant land which shall be dealt with hereinafter.

(3.) SHRI K.K. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has as such made only one submission that actual possession of the excess vacant land i.e. land bearing survey Nos.6, 7 and 33 has not been taken over by the Competent Authority and in accordance with law. Shri Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently submitted that as such the possession of the excess vacant land has not been taken over by the Appropriate Authority at all, more particularly, as alleged on 28.08.1995 and only a paper possession has been taken over and actual possession of the excess vacant land is still with the petitioners.