GAURIBHAI SOMABHAI AMIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by and on behalf of the respondent on 22nd June 1987 under Sec. 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the Ceiling Act' for brief) is under challenge in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Thereby the respondent revised the order passed by the Competent Authority at Ahmedabad on 8th March 1983 and declared the holding of petitioner No. 6 to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 1478 sq. mts.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. Petitioners Nos. 1, 6 and 7 are brothers (the brothers for convenience). Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 are sons of petitioner No. 1 and petitioners Nos. 8 and 9 are sons of petitioner No.7. The three brothers appear to have purchased one consolidated parcel of land bearing Survey No. 337/1+2+3 in all admeasuring 10622 sq. mts. situated at Bodakdev within the Urban Agglomeration of Ahmedabad (the disputed land for convenience) on 28th January 1972 under a duly registered sale document. It is the case of the petitioners that the disputed land was purchased in the name of the three brothers out of their joint family fund and it was understood that each petitioner had his equal share therein. Pursuant to that understanding an agreement of partition was executed on 8th December 1974 partitioning the disputed land equally amongst all these petitioners. Its copy is at Annexure-E to this petition. On coming into force of the Ceiling Act each petitioner filled in the prescribed form under Sec. 6(1) of the Ceiling Act showing his 1/9th share in the disputed land. Since the subject-matter of all the prescribed forms separately filled in by the petitioners herein was common, the competent authority at Ahmedabad consolidated the proceedings arising therefrom and by his common order passed on 8th March 1983 in the said proceedings declared the holding of each petitioner to be within the ceiling limit for the purposes of the Ceiling Act. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. It appears that the order at Annexure-C to this petition came to the notice of the concerned officer of the respondent. He appears to have found it not according to law. It was thought of revising under Sec. 34 of the Ceiling Act. Apropos a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioners on 24th September 1985 calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the order at Annexure-C to this petition should not be revised. A copy of the aforesaid show cause notice is at Annexure-A to this petition. It appears that the petitioners filed their reply to the show cause notice. After hearing the parties by the order passed by and on behalf of the respondent on 22nd June 1987, the order at Annexure-C to this petition was revised and it was declared that the holding of petitioner No. 6 was in excess of the ceiling limit by 1478 sq. mts. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. That aggrieved all the petitioners. They have, therefore, moved this Court by means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning its correctness.

(3.) Shri Oza for the petitioners has submitted that the agreement of partition at Annexure-E to this petition was in the nature of a family arrangement or at the most a memorandum of partition and it was not amenable to the Indian Registration Act, 1908 ('the Registration Act' for brief). Shri Oza has further submitted that the revisional powers under Sec. 34 of the Ceiling Act have been exercised after unreasonable length of time and it has resulted in unsettling of settled transactions which the petitioners entered into with certain persons prior to receipt of the show cause notice at Annexure-A to this petition. As against this Shri Dave for the respondent has urged that the document at Annexure-E to this petition is a deed of partition, both in its letter and spirit and it cannot be looked into for any purpose as it has not been executed on payment of the required stamp duty and for want of its registration according to law. Shri Dave for the respondent has further urged that no time limit is prescribed for the exercise of revisional powers under Sec. 34 of the Ceiling Act in view of the binding ruling of this Court in the case of Haresh Kantilal Vora v. Competent Authority and Addl. Collector, Rajkot and Anr. repoted in 1992 (2) GLH 424.