DECEASED CHATURBHAI GHORIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. Viral Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) BY this petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:

(3.) IN response to the averments made in the petition, the respondent No.2-competent authority has filed an affidavit-in- reply stating that vide order dated 29.09.1983, the land held by Chaturbhai Ghoribhai Patel had been declared as excess vacant, after which, necessary procedure under the ULC Act had been taken and that by an order dated 13.10.1986, compensation was also fixed under section 11 thereof. It is further averred that the respondent authority, after giving notice under section 10(5. of the Act on 14.03.1985, has taken possession of the subject land on 29.10.1985. It is further submitted that in the proceedings under section 11 of the Act, Kantaben Chaturbhai Patel had requested for higher amount of the compensation and, accordingly, the compensation amount was fixed at Rs.7029.40. Such amount of compensation was received by Kantaben Chaturbhai Patel on 13.10.1986, in respect of which, a receipt had also been issued. It is stated that the legal heirs of Chaturbhai Ghoribhai Patel had received the compensation amount in the year 1987 and, therefore, cannot claim possession in the year 2012 as compensation has already been paid to the legal heirs. The respondent No.2 has further denied that no action was taken pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal and that some communications for clarification were addressed to the State Government and that there was an exchange of correspondence. In the meanwhile, the Urban Land Ceiling Act came to be repealed on 30.3.1999. It is contended that it is the case of the respondent that since the possession of the subject land was taken over prior to the coming into force the Repeal Act and compensation had already been paid, the petitioners cannot claim back the land because for a period of twenty five years, the petitioners have enjoyed the amount of compensation.