MANSUKHLAL GORDHANDAS KANERIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by and on behalf of the respondents on 17th July 1987 is under challenge in both these petitions. Common question of law and fact are found arising in both these petitions. I have therefore thought it fit to dispose of both these petitions by this common judgment of mine.

(2.) The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 6630 of 1987 (the second petition for convenience) filed his declaration under prescribed form under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 (the Act for brief) with respect to its holding within the urban agglomeration of Rajkot. By his order passed on 25 March 1980 the competent authority of Rajkot came to the conclusion that the holding of the declarant was not in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under the Act. It appears to have come to the notice of the concerned officer of the State Government. He appears to have found it not according to law. Its suo motu revision under Section 34 of the Act was contemplated. A show-cause notice was issued to the declaration on 2 November 1985. It appears that in the meantime certain parcels of land came to be transferred to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6377 of 1987 (the first petition for convenience). They were also thereupon served with the aforesaid show-cause notice issued on 2nd November 1985 under Section 34 of the Act. After hearing the parties by the order passed by and on behalf of the respondents on 17th July 1987 the order passed by the competent authority on 25th March 1980 was quashed and set aside and the holding of the petitioner of the second petition was declared to be surplus by 3226 sq. mts. Its copy is at Annexure A to each petition. The petitioners of both the petitions were aggrieved by the said order. They have therefore moved this Court by means of their respective petitions under Article 237 of the Constitution of India for questioning its correctness.

(3.) Shri Dave for the respondent is right in his submission that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. At this stage Shri Shah for the petitioners prays for its conversion into the one under Article 226 thereof. That request made by Shri Shah for the petitioners is accepted and this petition is treated as the one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the grievance of the petitioners in each petition is contravention of their fundamental right inter alia under Article 14 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are not required to pay any deficit court fees.