RAMESH P PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Competent Authority at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 2 herein) on 31st May 1988 rejecting the application made by petitioner No. 1 presumably on behalf of the petitioners under section 21(1) of Urban Land (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 20th August 1990 in Appeal No Ahmedabad-388 of 1988 is under challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

(2.) The faces giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. It appears that petitioner No. 1 on behalf of the petitioners made one application some lime on 23rd March 1979 for permission under section 21(1) of the Act with respect to one parcel of land bearing survey No. 243 situated at Bodakdev within the urban agglomeration of Ahmedabad (the disputed land for convenience). The petitioners thereafter entered into one agreement with one Gayatri Builders (the contractor for convenience) on 13th December 1979 to sell the disputed land to the Contractor on certain terms and conditions A copy of that agreement is at Annexure-1 to this petition. It appears that the contractor unathorisedly raised some construction and the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority was required to issue a notice for demolition of such construction raised by the Contractor on the disputed land. The Contractor challenged that action of the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority before this Court by means of Special Civil Application No. 2972 of 1982 It came to be disposed of by the judgment delivered by this court on 25 March 1994 on the ground that the construction on the disputed land had come to be demolished. Coming back to the subject matter of this petition it appears that that correspondence with respect to approval of the scheme was received by the Contractor on behalf of the present petitioners. It appears that the Controller did not act as directed in the correspondence received by it from time to lime in connection with the application for permission under section 21(1) of the Act. It appears that the specified authority for the purposes of section 21(1) of the Act reported to respondent No. 2 that the particulars called for from the appellant were not supplied and the scheme could not be approved. The grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that they remained blissfully ignorant of the correspondence issued in connection with the application under section 21 of the Act. It appears that respondent No. 2 issued notices from time to time to petitioner No. 1 for hearing with respect to the aforesaid application under section 21(1) of the Act. I appears that pursuant to one such notice received by the petitioners they made a written representation on 25th May 1988 in response thereto. After hearing the parties by his order passed on 31st May 1988 respondent No. 2 rejected the application of petitioner No.1 under section 21 of the Act. Its copy is at Annexure-IV to this petition. It appears that both the contractor and the petitioners were aggrieved by it. The Contractor carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority under section 33 or the Act by means on Appeal No. Ahmedabad-299 of 1989. By the order passed on 26th September 1989 in the aforesaid appeal the Appellate Authority dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure-VII to this petition. So far as the petitioners are concerned they also preferred a separate appeal under section 33 of the Act. A copy of their memo of appeal is at Annexure-VIII to this petition. It came to be registered as appeal No. Ahmedabad- 388 of 1988. By his order passed on 20th August 1990 in the aforesaid appeal7 the Appellate Authority dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure-IX to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners have therefore moved this Court by means of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 or the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-VI to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-IX to this petition.

(3.) Though this petition has been styled as the one under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India it has to be treated as the one under Article 227 only in view of the binding Division Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Jashubhai Hiralal Gandhi vs. Competent Authority & Deputy Collector reported in 1990 (2) Gujarat Law Herald a Page 609.