DILIPSINH MOHANSINH Vs. S. J. MANSHA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners of these two petitions are brothers. Their holding with respect to some parcels of land is on co-ownership basis. Questions of fact and law arising in both these petitions are practically identical. I have therefore thought it fit to dispose of both these petitions by this common judgment of mine.

(2.) It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to boh these petitions. Each petitioner was holding certain parcels of land within the urban agglomeration of Surat. They were used for agricultural: purposes. They applied for exemption under Sec. 20 (I) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) with respect to their holding. By one order passed on 15th/22nd March 1978 involved in Special Civil Application No. 4804 of 1982 (the First Petition for convenience) and on 5th May 1979 involved in Special Civil Application No. 5271 of 1982 (the Second Petition for convenience), the exemption as prayed for came to be granted the exemption order is at Annexure- A to each petition. It appears that survey No. 32/2 situated at village Bathar within the urban agglomeration of Surat was owned by both the petitioners on co-ownership basis. The exemption with respect to that parcel of land came to be cancelled qua each petitioner's share therein by one order passed on 27th Dec. 1979 on the ground that that parcel of land was proposed to be acquired by the Municipal Corporation of Surat. A copy of the aforesaid order passed on 27th Dec. 1979 is at Annexure-AA to each petition. Thereupon an order was passed on 8th Oct. 1980 making modification in the exemption order at Annexure-A to each petition. A copy of the aforesaid modification order passed on 8th Oct. 1980 is at Annexure-B to each petition. It appears that each petitioner filled in the prescribed form under Sec. 6(1) of the Act with respect to his holding within the urban agglomeration of Surat. Pursuant thereto, the Competent Authority at Surat (respondent No. 2 in each case) by his order passed onl 25th March 1982 involved in the First Petition and on 14th April 1982 involved in the Second Petition, declared the holding of the petitioner of the First Petition to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 5506 square metres and the holding of the petitioner of the Second Petition to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 1777.54 square metres respectively. A copy of the aforesaid order passed by respondent No. 2 herein is at Annexure-C to each petition. That aggrieved each petitioner. Each carried the matter in appeal before the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 1 in each case) under Sec. 33 of the Act. The appeal of the petitioner of the First Petition came to be registered as Appeal No. Surat-5 of 1982 whereas that of the petitioner of the Second Petition appeal No. Surat 6 of 1982. By his common order passed on 30th Aug. 1982 in the aforesaid two appeals, respondent No. 1 dismissed both the appeals. A copy of the aforesaid common appellate order is at Annexure-D to each petition. That aggrieved each petitioner. Each has thereupon moved this Court by means of his respective petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-C to each petition as affirmed in appeal by the common appellate order at Annexure-D to each petition. Each petitioner has also challenged the legality and validity of the withdrawal of exemption by the order at Annexure-AA to each petition.

(3.) The order at Annexure-AA to each petition was obviously passed under Sec. 20(2) of the Act. It is an admitted position that no opportunity of hearing or making representation against the proposed action was given as provided therein. The order at Annexure-AA to each petition can thus be said to be violative of the audi alteram partem rule. It cannot therefore be sustained in law on this ground alone.