NARENDRABHAI MANISHANKER VYAS Vs. THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL SECRETARY (APPEALS), URBAN LAND (CEALING & REGULATION) ACT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner was in occupation and possession of certain parcels of land within the Urban Agglomeration of Ahmedabad as on 17th February 1976. It was in excess of the ceiling area fixed under the Act. He therefore submitted the necessary declaration in the prescribed form under Section 6(1) thereof. It appears that pursuant thereto a draft statement was prepared and it was caused to be served to the petition. No reply to the draft statement appears to have been filed by and on behalf of the petitioner. Thereupon, by his order passed on 4th January 1988, Respondent No.2 declared the holding of the petitioner to be in excess of the ceiling area by 1027.04 mtrs. Its copy is at Annexure 'C to this petition. That aggrieved the petitioner. He therefore carried the matter in Appeal before respondent No. 2 under Section 33 of the Act. It came to be registered as Appeal No.: Ahmedabad: 179 of 1988. By his order passed on 28th February 1990 respondent No. 1 dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure 'D' to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon moved this Court by means of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure 'C' to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the Appellate order at Annexure 'D' to this petition.

(3.) The constructed area comprised by the buildings on those parcels of land are also taken into consideration by the impugned order at Annexure 'C to this petition as affirmed in the appeal by the appellate order at Annexure 'D' to this petition. This is contrary to the binding ruling of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. at page 1567. In that view of the matter, the impugned order at Annexure 'C to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure 'D' to this petition cannot be sustained in law. The matter will have to be remanded to respondent No. 2 for restoration of the proceeding to file and for his fresh decision and according to law.