BABUBEN HARIBHAI Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Civil Application is revealing the plight of the petitioner claiming property rights under the Hindu Succession Act and yet not considered as a heir while deciding the matters under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 (the ULC Act for short). The petitioners father Haribhai purchased the land in question in the year 1951. Later on he died and in the year 1960 the land was mutated in the revenue records in the name of his two sons in the same year. Her two brothers filled in the Form No. 1 under Section 6 of the ULC Act and in that Form the petitioner was also named however the Competent Authority had not issued any notice to the petitioner and passed the order on 30th November 1983 about of the land which was declared by the two brothers in Form no. 1 under Section 6 Against the order of the Competent Authority an appeal was preferred and the appellate authority sustained the claim of two brothers to have separate ceiling units and thus 3000 sq. mtrs. of land was found to be within the ceiling limits and 1500 sq. mtrs. of land was given to each brother. The claim of widow of Haribhai i.e. the mother of the petitioner and her brothers namely Bhikhabhai and Fatehsinh was rejected. In these proceedings relating to the declaration filed by two brothers no contention was raised regarding the alleged rights of Babuben i.e. the present petitioner. The petitioners case is that her father Haribhai had died leaving behind him his widow two sons and the present petitioner as his legal heirs and all of them had equal rights in the land left by deceased Haribhai as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. The petitioners claim of share in the land left behind by her deceased father i.e. in the land bearing Survey No. 377 admeasuring 6379 sq. mtrs. of village Savad in question. When she came to know that the declaration filed by her two brothers had been finalised without any notice to her she herself filed declaration under Section 6 in respect of the aforesaid land claiming her share. It is the case of the petitioner that she had filed the declaration on 15th April 1986. Thereupon a draft statement was served upon her as required under Section 8(3) of the ULC Act on 13 June 1986 and she had lodged her objection on 28 June 1986. She had based her claim under the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and that the Form was filed on that basis. The Competent Authority came to the conclusion that as initially two brothers of the petitioner had filled in the forms and it had already passed the order on 30th November 1993 in that declaration whereby the claim of the mother was rejected and two brothers were given separate units of 1500 sq. mtrs of land each it was now left no power to reconsider the matter and accordingly the form submitted by the petitioner was filed under Section 8(4) of the Act by its order dated 23rd November 1986 Against this order of the Competent Authority passed on 23rd November 1986 the petitioner preferred Appeal No 8 of 1988 before the Urban Land Tribunal The Tribunal by its order dated 18th February 1988 dismissed the appeal The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18th February 1988 passed by the Urban Land Tribunal read with the Competent Authoritys order dated 23rd November 1986

(2.) It appears that in this matter pending admission ad interim relief was granted by this Court in terms of para 9(c) restraining the respondents from acting further on the basis of the order passed by the Competent Authority and not to take possession of the land i.e. the land at village Savad bearing Survey No 337 till the petition is finally heard and decided It further appears that this Special Civil Application was filed on 31st March 1988 and during the pendency of the petition a Notification dated 12th May 1988 had been issued under Section 10(3) of the Act and this notification was published in the Government Gazette on 26 1988 The petitioner therefore sought an amendment challenging the aforesaid notification and the amendment was granted by this Court and as per the amendment in prayer Clause-(f) was included praying that the notification dated 12th May 1988-Annexure-C may also be quashed

(3.) No return has been filed in this Special Civil Application