UTTAMCHAND POPATLAL SHAH Vs. ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Competent Authority at Rajkot (Respondent No. 1 herein) on 9th December 1983 under Section 8(4) of the Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, ("the Act" for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad ("the Appellate Authority" for convenience) on 1st October, 1987 in Appeal No. Rajkot-258 of 1984 is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order respondent No. 1 declared the holding of the petitioner to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 1266.42 square metres.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner was holding on the appointed day for the purposes of the Act certain vacant lands within the urban agglomeration of Rajkot. He therefore filled in the prescribed form under Section 6(1) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, a draft statement came to be prepared and came to be served to the petitioner in accordance with Section 8 thereof. The petitioner filed his objections thereto. After hearing the petitioner, by his order passed on 9th December, 1983 under Section 8(4) thereof, respondent No. 1 declared the holding of the petitioner to he in excess of the ceiling limit by 1266.42 square metres. Its copy is at annexurc-H to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 33 of the Act. A copy of the memo of appeal is at Annexure-J to this petition. It came to be registered as Appeal No. Rajkot-258 of 1984. By his order passed on 1st October, 1987 in the aforesaid appeal, the Appellate Authority dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure-K to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure-H to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-K to this petition.

(3.) It may be mentioned that the property at serial No. 7 on internal page 6 of the impugned order at Annexure-H to this petition was shown to be of the joint ownership of the petitioner with another person. That was so shown in the declaration made under Section 6(1) of the Act. According to the petitioner, he had only his one half share, therein on account bf its joint purchase by the petitioner and items co-owner by investment of equal funds. Respondent No. 1 rejected that contention of the petitioner only on the ground that the sale document did not specify shares of the petitioner and the other co-owner, and he therefore included the entire area in the petitioner's holding.