CHHOTABHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The show-cause notice issued by respondent No. 1 on 9/04/1984 under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (`the Act for brief) is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By its impugned notice respondent No. 1 has directed the petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 herein to show-cause why the order passed by the Competent Authority on 26/04/1982 under Section 8(4) of the Act should not be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the show-cause notice therein.

(2.) The disputes arising in this petition centre round three parcels of land bearing Survey Nos. 200.1 200 and 187/2 and two house sites bearing Gram Panchayat Nos. 87 and 89 situated in village Mamnagar taluka City district Ahmedabad (`the disputed properties for convenience). They original belonged to one Chimanlal Cheldas. He appears to have filed the required statement under Section 6 of the Act on 8/08/1976. Pursuant thereto a draft statement under Section 8(1) thereof was served with the notice of 21/01/1982 It appears that by that time the land owner had breathed his last leaving behind him petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 in this petition as his heirs and legal representatives. They submitted their objections on 2 5/02/1982 to the draft statement received along with the notice of 21/01/1982. According to them the disputed properties has come to their share in equal proportion of 1113 square metres each. After hearing the parties the Competent Authority came to the conclusion that only 3 square metres of land was in excess and accordingly the necessary order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed on 26/04/1982. Its copy is at Annexure A to this petition. It appears that the petitioners wanted to sell the disputed properties to petitioner No. 5 herein and apropos the notice under Section 26 of the Act was served to the Competent Authority on 1 3/07/1982. It appears that the Competent Authority sat silent over that notice and by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 26 thereof the presumption that the Competent Authority had no intention to purchase the disputed properties arose in favour of the intending vendors. It appears that thereafter petitioners Nos. 1-4 sold the disputed properties to petitioner No. 5 by a registered sale deed. I am told at the Bar by Kum. Shah for the petitioners that the sale deed was registered on 3/02/1984. It appears that thereupon the respondent came to know that the sale transaction in question took place pursuant to the order passed by the Competent Auhtority at Annexure A to this petition. The respondent did not find it according to law. It therefore thought of exercising its revisional powers under Section 34 of the Act for upsetting it. With a view to preventing any change of equity qua the disputed properties by its order of injunction issued on 3/04/1984. The respondent directed petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 herein to maintain status quo with respect to the disputed properties. Its copy is at Annexure B to this petition. Soon thereafter it issued a show-cause notice to them on 9/04/1984 directing them to show-cause why the order at Annexure A to this petition should not be quashed and set aside. A copy of the show-cause notice is at Annexure C to this petition. That appears to have aggrieved not only the recipients of the show-cause notice but petitioner No. 5 also as the purchaser of the disputed properties. It appears that petitioner No. 5 had undertaken construction of flats on the disputed properties and the necessary contract was given to petitioner No. 6. Thereupon all the petitioners joining together have moved this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the validity of the impugned show-cause notice at Annexure C to this petition.

(3.) Kum. Shah for the petitioners has urged that the power under Section 34 of the Act cannot be exercised after unreasonable length of time and that serious prejudice would be caused if such power is exercised after such unreasonable length of time in the present case. As against this Shri Patel for the respondent has submitted that lapse of time by itself cannot come in the way of the revisional authority to upset any order passed by the Competent Authority if it is ex facie contrary to law. He has further submitted in the alternative that it would be for the petitioners to satisfy the revisional authority that the exercise of power after unreasonable time would cause serious prejudice to them.