(1.) Shri H.P.Raval, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri L.R.Pujari, learned AGP for the State. Heard.
(2.) By the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 1.3.88 passed by the State Government, rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 20 of the Urban Land [Ceiling & Regulation] Act, 1976 on the ground that the land in dispute was belonging to 13 persons, there were no good reasons for refusing the permission. It is submitted that in the present matter, proceedings under Section 10[3] of the Act were not drawn and as the petitioner was never dispossessed, the proceedings against the petitioner would stand abated and he would be entitled to retain possession of the total area of the land in dispute admeasuring 8 acres and 28 gunthas.
(3.) The facts necessary for proper appreciation of the dispute are that the land in dispute was purchased by as many as 13 persons as joint owners. Raghav Unadkat, who was one of the co-owner submitted a form under Section 6 of the Act and pleaded before the Competent Authority that the land in dispute was jointly owned by 13 persons and as each of them had some share in the property, the land could not be declared to be beyond the ceiling limit or in excess of the authority to hold. It is to be seen that the present petitioner and some other co-owners also filed their returns under Section 6 and stated that they were entitled to retain possession of the property, being the co-owners. The petitioner, thereafter made an application under Section 20 and therefore further proceedings beyond Section 10[2] of the Act were not taken against him, however, the proceedings against Raghavji Unadkat continued. The authorities, after finding that the said Raghavji Unadkat was holding the land beyond the ceiling limits, proceeded under Section 10 of the Act. Sections 10[1] and 10[2] of the Act which are material for the present case read as under:-