VASANTALAL CHHOTALAL KHANDWALLA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 4077 of 1983. The petitioner in the Special Civil Application originally preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. We would prefer to refer to him as the petitioner, while dealing with the controversy in this Letters Patent Appeal. Pending the Letters Patent Appeal, the petitioner passed away and his legal representative has been brought on record today in Civil Application No.1210 of 1993. The petitioner on 5.7.1980 was held to hold lands within the ceiling limit, under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 23 of 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner is stated to have effected sales of the lands subsequently. On 3.5.1983 the impugned proceedings - annexure 'A' has been issued by the State - respondent no.1 to the petitioner and its body as per the English translation (the original being in Gujarati) furnished to us runs thus:

(2.) Very many contentions were urged on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge who dealt with the Special Civil Application, coveting 'interference at his hands. Broadly speaking the contentions touched the question of lack of jurisdiction to issue interim direction of maintain status quo; lack of competence to issue such direction on the ground no concrete proceeding for exercise of power under section 34 of the Act had, in fact, been initiated at that time; the delay in initiating proceedings under section 34 of the Act as per annexure 'A' and lack of power to take action after the lands have been sold away. The learned Single Judge repelled all the contentions raised before him and rejected the Special Civil Application.

(3.) We do not propose to go into the merits of all the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the petitioner and again raised before us in this Letters Patent Appeal, since we are inclined to countenance the primary contention put forth by the learned counsel Mr. S.B. Vakil for the petitioner and now for his legal representative that since by the proceedings - annexure 'A' impugned in the Special Civil Application, no positive action for exercise of powers under section34 of the Act could be stated to have been properly commenced and initiated and except for barely notifying a proposal or a decision of the State to review the order dated 5.7.1980, the matter had not progressed even to the stage of initiation of proceedings for exercise of powers under section 34 of the Act and in that context the interim direction to maintain status quo, assuming that such interim direction could be issued, on such initiation of proceedings is wholly incompetent. When we look into the express verbalism of the impugned proceedings-annexure 'A' in the light of section 34 of the Act, we find that what is being advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is perfectly justifiable and deserves acceptance.