KALABEN DASHRATHLAL KAVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Shri Dave for the Respondents.

(2.) The order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 20th April 1993 under Sec. 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) is under challenge in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, respondent No. 1 took into suo motu revision the order passed by the Competent Authority at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 2 herein) on 19th July 1990 in U.L.C. Case Nos. Vejalpur-1124 and 1132 and modified it by holding that the holding of petitioner No. 1 was in excess of the ceiling limit by 420.66 square metres and of petitioner No. 2 by 57 square metres.

(3.) It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to this petition. Suffice it to say that pursuant to the prescribed form filled in by the petitioners separately under Sec. 6(1) of the Act with respect to their holding within the urban agglomeration of Ahmedabad, respondent No. 2 passed the necessary common order on 19th July 1990 holding that neither petitioner herein was having any property in excess of the ceiling limit. Its copy is at Annexure-E to this petition. It appears to have come to the notice of the concerned officer of respondent No. 1. He appears to have found it not according to law. Thereupon a show cause notice under Sec. 34 of the Act came to be issued on 12th November 1992 calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the order at Annexure-E to this petition should not be revised. A copy of the aforesaid show cause notice is at Annexure-I to this petition. It appears that the petitioners filed their reply to the show cause notice and resisted the proposed action on several grounds. A copy of their reply is at Annexure-L to this petition. It appears that on different occasions the petitioners also produced xerox copies of certain documents in support of their case set up in their reply at Annexure-L to this petition. After hearing the parties, by the order passed on 20th April 1993, respondent No. 1 revised the order at Annexure-E to this petition and came to the conclusion that the holding of petitioner No. 1 was in excess of the ceiling limit by 420.66 square metres and that of petitioner No. 2 by 57 square metres. Its copy is at Annexure-M to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon moved this Court by means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning its correctness.