KUNVERJI LALIT PARMAR Vs. C M LENYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The communication issued by the respondent on 25/08/1982 returning the petitioners notice under Section 26 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (The Act for brief) is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution India.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner claimed to be the owner of Plot No. 99 (part) admeasuring 60.29 square metres situated at Dholariya Nagar in Rajkot (the disputed property for convenience). According to the petitioner his holding of the urban property amenable to the Act was within the ceiling limit. He wanted to sell the disputed property to one Kiritkumar Jaisukhlal Patan (the proposed purchaser for convenience). The petitioner thereupon served the required notice under Section 26 (1) of the Act to the respondent in the prescribed form on 24/06/1982. Its copy is at Annexure A to this petition. It was accompanied by his affidavit to the effect that the disputed property belonged to him and his holding was within the ceiling limit fixed under the Act. Its copy is at Annexure B to this petition. It was also accompanied by one statement by the proposed purchaser to the effect that he wanted to purchase the disputed property and that he did not hold any urban or urbanised land with a building thereof. Its copy is at Annexure C to this petition. The petitioner also addressed one communication of 2 6/06/1982 enclosing therewith copies of the three judgments of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1408 of 1976 decided on 6/11/1976 Special Civil Application No. 163 of 1978 decided on 10/10/1979 and Special Civil Application No. 1054 of 1977 decided on 24/02/1978. According to the petitioner the Competent Authority was required to dispose of the fate of the notice under Section 26 (1) of the Act in the light of the accompanying judgments. A copy of the aforesaid communication of 26/06/1982 is at Annexure D to this petition. In the communication at Annexure D to this petition the petitioner also referred to the direction given by the State Government to the Competent Authorities to follow the aforesaid judgments of this Court. A copy of the State Governments communication of 14/08/1981 in that regard is at Annexure E to this petition. One circular issued by the State Government on 15/02/1979 containing the guidelines for disposal of the notice and the applications under Sections 26 and 27 of the Act is at Annexure F to this petition. By his communication of 1 5/09/1982 the respondent returned the petitioners notice of 24/06/1982 on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the particulars regarding his title to the disputed land. Its copy is at Annexure G to this petition. The petitioner thereupon addressed one communication of 21/07/1982 indicating that he had produced in the office of the respondent on 17/07/1982 a copy of the index with respect to his document of title duly certified by the Sub-Registrar at Rajkot. The petitioner thereupon requested the respondent to consider his notice under Section 26 (1) of the Act in accordance with law. By his communication of 25/08/1982 the respondent again returned the petitioners notice under Section 26 (1) of the Act on the ground that it could not be ascertained from the notice and the other material what was the petitioners holding. Its copy is at Annexure 1 to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon moved this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The point involved in this petition is covered by the aforesaid three rulings of this Court. In its ruling in Special Civil Application No. 1408 of 1976 decided on 6/11/1976 (Coram: M.P. Thakkkar J. then was) the notice under Section 26 of the Act was declared ineffective on the ground that further particulars with respect to the land in question sought for by the authority were not supplied. In that case this Court has come to the conclusion that the Competent Authority under Section 26(1) of the Act was not justified in calling for any other particulars and he had only to communicate whether or not he wanted to purchase the land on behalf of the State Government. The aforesaid ruling of this Court in Special Civil Application No. ]408 of 1976 was followed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1673 of 1978 decided On 10/10/1979. In its ruling in Special Civil Application No. 1054 of 1977 decided on 24/02/1978 (Coram: A.D. Desai J.) the Competent Authority had returned the notice under Section 26(1) of the Act for want of certain particulars called for by the Competent Authority from the author of the notice. In that context this Court has held that the Competent Authority was not justified in calling for any such particulars and he had no power to return the notice under Section 26(1) of the Act on that ground.