MAVJIBHAI PARBATBHAI TRAPASIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the facts narrated hereinafter would show that both these matters are required to be decided by a common order as they relate to the proceedings about the same land and accordingly, both these Special Civil Application are decided by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners in Special CiviL Application No. 6194 of 1984 formed a partnership firm, in the name and style of M/s. Khedut Sarvoday Company, through a partnership deed dated 21st January 1975. The said partnership firm owned and possessed plot Nos. 19 to 24, 29 to 32, 42, 43, 61 to 67, 70 to 74 in Survey No. 481/2, admeasuring 12,919.6 sq.mtrs. at Rajkot. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short) came into force on 17th February 1976. Before the said Act commenced, the aforesaid partnership firm was dissolved by a document dated 4th December 1975. However, the Form No. 1 was filed under Sec. 6 of the Act by the firm on 12th September 1976. The Competent Authority finalised the proceedings and keeping in view the factum of dissolution of the partnership in December 1975, i.e., before the commencement of the Act and holding that the dissolution of the partnership does not amount to transfer of the property, the case was filed by the Competent Authority on the basis that no partner held the land in excess. This order was passed by the Competent Authority on 15th November 1979. The Revenue Department of the Government, issued a show cause notice in exercise of its powers under Sec. 34 of the Act on 7th March 1984. The order passed by the Competent Authority was set aside and the Government directed the Competent Authority to inquire into the matter on the basis of the directions given in the decision of the Government under Sec. 34 rendered on 20th October 1984. It has been given out by Mr. J. R. Nanavati, learned Counsel for the petitioners that, this time, the Competent Authority passed the order against the petitioners and an appeal under Sec. 33 of the Act was preferred against the order passed by the Competent Authority against the petitioners in pursuance of the remand order of the Government in the Revenue Department, i.e., the order passed on 20th October 1984 under Sec. 34. It is also given out by Mr. Nanavati that, the Urban Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal by saying that, in view of the order passed by the Government under Sec. 34, the Urban Land Tribunal, as an appellate authority, could not do anything and against such order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal, a separate Special Civil Application No. 5508 of 1988 was filed in this High Court and the same is also pending. At this stage, it was submitted by Mr. T. H. Sompura, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader that, in view of the aforesaid facts given out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, this Special Civil Application has become infructuous. But the argument of Mr. Nanavati is, that if the order passed by the Government under Sec. 34 dated 20th October 1984 is not sustained by this Court, the original order passed by the Competent Authority shall stand restored and the proceedings which have taken place in consequence of the Revenue Department's order dated 20th October 1984 as a result of this Special Civil Application may be consequently rendered invalid and therefore, this Special Civil Application No. 6194 of 1984 cannot be dismissed as having become infructuous and the same has to be decided on merits. I find ample justification in the submission of Mr. Nanavati, learned Counsel for the petitioners and, therefore, Special Civil Application No. 6194 of 1984 cannot be dismissed as having become infructuous and the same has to be decided on merits.

(3.) Special Civil Application No. 6194 of 1984 was filed way back in the year 1984. The Rule was issued way back on 22nd January 1985 and even after a lapse of a period of more than one decade, no return has been filed on behalf of the respondents as is not being done by the Urban Land Ceiling Department or the Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, in almost all the cases under the Act. However, Mr. T. H. Sompura, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader has argued the matter orally.