JAYANTILAL KASALCHAND SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 herein on 13th July 1987 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. Thereby the order passed by the Competent Authority at Rajkot (respondent No. 2 herein) on 20th October 1983 in U.L.C. Case No. 2128 of 1976 came to be revised and the holding of the petitioner came to be declared excess by 3106.01 square metres and the excess was declared to be surplus.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner held certain parcels of land in Rajkot. It was beyond the ceiling limit prescribed for that area under the Act. He, therefore, filled in the prescribed form under Sec. 6(1) thereof. The proceeding came to be registered as U.L.C. Case No. 2128 of 1976. Pursuant thereto, a draft statement was prepared by respondent No. 2 herein and it was caused to be served to the petitioner in accordance with Sec. 8 thereof. After hearing the parties, by his order passed on 20th October 1983 in the aforesaid proceeding, respondent No. 2 came to the conclusion that the holding of the petitioner was in excess of the ceiling limit by 134.69 square metres and it was declared surplus and it was to be carved out from plot No. 31 of Survey No. 399 in all admeasuring 484.68 square metres. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. It appears that the petitioner was aggrieved by the order at Annexure-A to this petition. He, therefore, carried the matter in appeal before the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Appellate Authority for convenience) under Sec. 33 of the Act. It came to be registered as Appeal No. Rajkot-151 of 1983. It appears that he applied for unconditional withdrawal of his appeal. By the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 28th November 1984 in the aforesaid appeal, the appeal came to be disposed of as withdrawn. Its copy is a part of Annexure-B (collectively) to this petition. It appears that thereafter the notification under Sec. 10(1) of the Act came to be issued on 4th January 1985 with respect to the excess land declared surplus under the order at Annexure-A to this petition. Its copy is a part of Annexure-C (collectively) to this petition. It appears that the necessary notification under Sec. 10(3) thereof also came to be issued and published on 16th May 1985. Pursuant thereto, a notice was issued on 11th October 1985 to the petitioner under Sec. 10(5) thereof to hand over possession of the excess land declared surplus under the order at Annexure-A to this petition. Its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. It appears that the petitioner did hand over the possession of the excess land declared surplus pursuant to the notice at Annexure-D to this petition. This factual position is not in dispute. It appears that the order at Annexure-A to this petition came to the notice of the concerned officer of respondent No. 1. He appears to have found it not according to law. Its revision under Sec. 34 of the Act was, therefore, contemplated. Thereupon a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 2nd April 1986 calling upon him to show cause why the order at Annexure-A to this petition should not be revised. Its copy is at Annexure-E to this petition. The petitioner filed his reply thereto sometime on 6th May 1986. Its copy is at Annexure-F to this petition. After hearing the petitioner through his Advocate, by the order passed on 13th September 1987 under Sec. 34 of the Act, the order at Annexure-A to this petition came to be revised and it was held that the holding of the petitioner was in excess of the ceiling limit by 3106.01 square metres. Its copy is at Annexure-G to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon moved this Court by means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning its correctness.

(3.) Shri Nanavati for the petitioner has submitted that, once an appeal against the order at Annexure-A to this petition was preferred, no revisional powers under Sec. 34 of the Act could be exercised. In the alterative, Shri Nanavati for the petitioner has submitted that the power under Sec. 34 of the Act has come to be exercised after lapse of unreasonable period of time and it has resulted in unsettling the settled transaction as reflected in the reply at Annexure-F to this petition. Shri Dave for the respondents has on the other hand submitted that the revisional powers under Sec. 34 of the Act can be exercised at any point of time in view of the binding Division Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Haresh Kantilal Vora v. Competent Authority and Additional Collector, Rajkot reported in 1992(2) GLH 424. Shri Dave for the respondents has further submitted that, on interpretation of Sec. 34 of the Act, unless the appeal has been disposed of on its own merits, the revisional powers under Sec. 34 of the Act qua the order at Annexure-A to this petition could be exercised.