STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. POPAT JADAV PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitions are filed by the petitioner-State for the prayers that, the impugned order passed by the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal At Ahmedabad in Appeal Nos.20/1993 & 64/1994 respectively produced at Annexure-A in both petitions may be quashed and set aside on the grounds stated in the memo of petition.

(2.) Learned AGP Shri Vyas referred to the papers and the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners. He submitted that form no.6 produced with the additional affidavit clearly suggests that it was claimed to be an independent land and entire basis to claim it as an HUF property is erroneous. He has referred to the papers and also the notice dated 30.04.1984 under Section 10(5) of the Act and the draft statement has also been sent to the respondent, Popat Jadav, which was received as per the RPAD acknowledgment. It was submitted that the notice has been served regarding the declaration and surplus land and notice under Section 10(5) of the Act is also served. He has also submitted that the panchnama regarding taking over the possession is also produced. Learned AGP, Shri Vyas therefore submitted that it would suggest that the possession of the land in question has been taken over. He therefore submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous. Learned AGP Shri Vyas has also submitted that the possession is taken over in November, 1992 and possession has been taken, for which, notice under Section 10(1) of the Act issued on April, 1982 produced at Annexure-IV of Special Civil Application No. 404/1996. Learned AGP Shri Vyas submitted that as the possession has been handed over, notice under Section 10(6) of the Act would not be relevance. Therefore, the Tribunal after 12 years has set aside the order of the competent authority, which is bad in law. Learned AGP Shri Vyas submitted that there is no application for condonation of delay and, therefore, delay could not have been condoned without any such application. He submitted that such a gross delay could not have been condoned without providing the opportunity of hearing. Learned AGP Shri Vyas submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have exercised such jurisdiction in such a fashion and, therefore, it requires to be quashed and set aside. Learned AGP Shri Vyas submitted that there is no evidence on record and in fact, form no.6 does not reflect that it was an HUF property.

(3.) Learned AGP Shri Vyas submitted that at the most, the Tribunal could have set aside the order passed by the competent authority and could have remanded the matter back to the competent authority but it could not have itself decided the matter and thereby has committed jurisdictional error.