PUNJIBEN RANCHHODJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr.N.K.Pahwa for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Bharat Vyas for the respondents.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that Form No.6 was submitted by the petitioner under section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ("the Act" for short) on 14.9.1976 and the land admeasuring 17394 square meters was declared vacant and surplus. It is not under dispute that the final statement under section 9 of the Act was issued on 21.9.1983.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner has mainly submitted that the actual possession of the land is not taken by the respondent authorities and, therefore, under the provisions of section 3 read with section 4 of the Repeal Act, the proceedings would abate. Drawing attention of this Court on the panchnama dated 2.7.1990 at pages 55 to 57 of the petition, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that referring to the same, it is clear that no forceful possession is ever taken from the land owner and the law contemplates that if the land owner and/or a person in possession does not hand over the possession voluntarily and even after giving the notice under section 10(5) of the Act, the authority is obliged to give notice under section 10(6) of the Act to take forceful possession and thereafter, the authority is obliged to take forceful possession and so far as the present case is concerned, there is no material or evidence forthcoming on record from the respondents to show that the authority has either issued the notice under section 10(6) of the Act or that the authority has acquired forcible actual and physical possession of the land. Drawing further attention on the above referred panchnama dated 2.7.1990, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that as mentioned in the said panchnama, it has come on record that while drawing the said panchnama, the concerned authority has found that at least 300 350 constructed houses were there on the site and no vacant land is there at the site. He has, then, drawn attention of this Court on the notice issued under section 10(5) of the Act dated 17/31.5.1990 at page 53 and submitted that referring to the same, it is clear that the respondents have issued the notice to the petitioner only and no notice has been issued or served to the persons who are residing in 300 350 constructed houses which were as such constructed by the Laxmikrupa Cooperative Housing Society Limited as mentioned in the above referred panchnama dated 2.7.1990.