KANUBHAI NAGJIBHAI SHAH Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these three petitions are holders of vacant land in urban agglomeration of Baroda. The land is survey no.159 admeasuring 1464 Sq.mts. Each of the three petitioners have their shares of less than 500 sq.mts. The ceiling limit in the urban agglomeration of Baroda is 1500 sq.mts. The petitioners entered into an agreement for sale of this land at the rate of Rs. 7.00 per sq.ft. (Rs. 75.35 per sq.mt.) and gave a written notice of the intended transfer to the competent authority under section 26(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976

(2.) Thereupon the competent authority exercised first option to purchase such land on behalf of the State Government at a price calculated in accordance with the provisions in the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners preferred three appeals against the decision to exercise the option. However the appeals were dismissed as premature because according to the appellate authority the Government was yet to pass the final orders under section 26(2) determining the price calculated in accordance with he provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The competent authority decided the price at Rs. 58.00 per sq.mt. and paid that price to the petitioner who accepted the same under protest. In the appeal against that order the appellate authority looking to the merits of the case observed that the competent authority has steam rolled in arriving at his decision and order dated 13.9 The appellate authority also referred to the earlier appeal which was rejected on August 23 1977 on the ground that the appeal proceedings were premature since three months period had not expired. The appellate authority also observed that it was clear that having waited for three months without any obvious reason for delay the competent authority acted on the last day of the expiry of the statutory period under section 26(2) to complete at a time all the procedures within one day for determining the price of the land. It was also noted that the opinion of the consulting surveyor was given on September 30 1977 the day on which the competent authority has taken and completed all the proceedings. The appellate authority therefore concluded that there was reason to believe that the appellants had to undergo entire proceedings under dress in order that the competent authority can adhere to the statutory time limit. The appellate authority also held that the manner in which the case was handled and the treatment which was meted out to the appellant and the speed with which the entire proceedings were concluded in one day lcd to the conclusion that the competent authority was in not haste to abide by the statutory limitation provided in the Act. As regards the fixation of price the appellate authority observed that the competent authority had not discussed the merit of the price offered to the appellant by the vendee i.e. Rs. 75.35 per sq.mt. The appellate authority also observed that the competent authority had not considered that this would be the price offered against an effective demand for exactly the same land in question and had not given any pros and cons as to why he has rejected the price demanded by the appellant and had not applied the factors mentioned in sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act and for all these considerations the procedure adopted by the competent authority and the conclusions arrived at by him were found to be not free from bias and were taken in undue haste and it was necessary to quash the order of the competent authority and to remand the case back to him for taking fresh proceedings under section 96 of the Act in an objective and unbiased manner by taking timely action of various stages within three months from the date of appellate order. Thus the appeals were allowed and the matters were remanded.

(3.) After the remand the competent authority proceeded to redetermine the price. The petitioners insisted that the question of pre emption be decided. However the competent authority was disinclined to consider that aspect thinking that only the question of price was required to be redetermined. The petitioners approached the appellate authority pointing out this aspect to the appellate authority. However the appellate authority replied that after the remand the proceedings before the competent authority were subjudice and it would not be proper to give any advice or instruction in respect of a pending matter and after the order of the competent authority if necessary the party can prefer appeal. (Annexure T).