B H PAREKH Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Competent Authority at Rajkot (respondent No. 1 herein) on 1/12/1983 in ULC Case No. 2360 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Appellate Authority for convenience) on 18/09/1987 in Appeal No. Rajkot-61 of 1984 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order respondent No. 1 came to the conclusion that the holding of the petitioner was in excess of the ceiling unit by 1234.32 square metres and ordered preparation of the final statement in that regard under Section 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (the Act for brief).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner had his house situated in Mill Para Rajkot admeasuring 224.32 square metres. His wife had some four parcels of land in all admeasuring 2500 square metres in Rajkot. She breathed her last on 18/10/1975 Prior to her death she had executed one testamentay document on 10/05/1975 bequeathing all her properties including the aforesaid four parcels of land to her husband and her three married sons practically in equal share. It may be mentioned at this stage that each plot of land left behind by the deceased was admeasuring nearly 750 square metres. On coming into force of the Act the petitioner filed his statement under Section 6(1) of the Act disclosing his properties to be the aforesaid house property and his share in his deceased wifes property being one plot admeasuring 745 square metres. The proceeding thereupon came to be registered as ULC case No. 2360 Pursuant thereto a draft statement was prepared and served to the petitioner as provided in the relevant provisions contained in Section 8 of the Act. The petitioner submitted his objection thereto. It appears that the petitioner produced in support of his case that he received his share in his wifes property one judgment delivered by the Probate Court granting a probate in respect of her Will executed on 10/05/1975. After hearing the arguments by his order passed on 1/12/1983 in the aforesaid proceeding respondent No. 1 came to the conclusion that the petitioners holding was in excess of the ceiling area by 1234.32 square metres. Its copy is at Annexure C to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority by means of his Appeal No. Rajkot-61 of 1984 A copy of the Memo of Appeal is at Annexure F to this petition. By his order passed on 18/09/1987 in the aforesaid appeal the Appellate Authority dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure G to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure C to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure G to this petition.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 did not accept the case of the petitioner about his having inherited his share of plot from his wife under the testamentary document only on the ground that its probate was obtained on 4/05/1979. Respondent No. I therefore treated the property belonging to the petitioners wife to be that of her husband and accordingly calculated the excess property in his hand. Besides the Competent Authority also took into consideration the residential house which was admittedly constructed prior to coming into force of the Act. The Appellate Authority in appeal doubted whether the property belonging to the wife was in fact her property as it was purchased in her name sometime in 1968. Even after reading the document wherein it was treated as her streedhan the conclusion of the Appellate Authority was to the effect that it was not free from doubt that the petitioner had purchased the aforesaid land property in his wifes name from his own funds. Thereupon the Appellate Authority considered the aforesaid parcels of land in all admeasuring 2500 square metres to be the petitioners property for the purposes of the Act.