VASANTLAL CHHOTALAL KHANDWALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition arises out of certain orders passed by the State Government under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated June 3 1983 passed by the Government. By this order the petitioner has been directed to maintain status quo in respect of the land of Athva Survey No. 3 plot No. 1 2 3 and the land of Ward No. 9 Entry No. 159 admeasuring 1691.87 sq. mt. situated in Urban Agglomeration area of Surat. It is mentioned in the order that the Competent Authority and Addl. Collector Surat had granted permission as per order dated July 5 1980 That as per the material available on record it is contrary to law and therefore the Government has decided to take the proceedings in suo motu revision under Section 34 of the Act. Therefore. it is directed that the status quo be maintained till further orders. It is also stated in the order that the date of hearing and time shall be informed later on separately. The petitioner also challenges the legality and validity of a notice (Annexure `B to the petition) issued under the provisions of Section 8 (3) of the Act by the Competent Authority and Addl. Collector of Surat. By this notice a draft statement as per the provisions of Section 8 (1) of the Act has been sent to the petitioner and he has been informed to produce objections if any within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

(2.) As far as the notice dated December 15 1982 Annexure `B to the petition is concerned the counsel for the respondent-State has fairly conceded that the notice has been served through oversight and the same is not to be considered as a valid one. In view of the concession made by the counsel for the respondent-State the notice dated December 15 1982 (Annexure `B) is required to be treated as cancelled. Hence the challenge of the petitioner in the petition in so far as it relates to notice Annexure `B does not survive. Therefore the challenge to the order dated May/ June 3 1983 produced at Annexure `A to the petition requires to be examined.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that he was not covered by the provisions of the Act inasmuch as he did not hold vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at the commencement of the Act. But out of abundant caution he had filled in the form under Section 6 (1) of the Act. According to the petitioner at the commencement of the Act his family comprised of himself and his wife Lataben and therefore in his statement under Section 6 (1) of the Act he declared also the vacant lands held by his wife Lataben. The details of the land held by him and his wife Lataben have been given in para 2.1 of the petition. The wife of the petitioner Lataben had executed a will dated April 27 1979 She expired in Bombay on May 7 1979 The petitioner has stated that in view of the death of his wife he made representation dated May 21 1980 and pointed out the consequences ensuing on account of the death of his wife. Thereafter on July 5 1980 the Competent Authority under the Act came to the conclusion that the petitioner held vacant land admeasuring 1337.85 sq. mt. which is below the ceiling limit of 1500 sq. mt. as applicable to the Urban Agglomeration area of Surat. Therefore the statement under Section 6 (1) of the Act was ordered to be filed. That order dated July 5 1980 has not been produced on record. However averments to this effect have been made in the petition. It is further contended by the petitioner that he had given a notice under Section 26 of the Act of intended transfer by way of sale of vacant lands held by him. The said notice of intended transfer was not accepted by the second respondent i.e. the Competent Authority on the ground that the land held by the petitioner was in excess of the ceiling limit. As stated by the petitioner the petitioner has made certain transfers under the permission dated December 6 1982 granted by the second respondent i.e. Competent Authority and Addl. Collector Surat. Thereafter the case is sought to be taken in suo motu revision as per order dated May/June 3 1983 (Annexure `A). This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition.