BHARATKUMAR LALBHAI VASA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioners were holding different parcels of land at Kalupur and village Maktampur, which fall under urban agglomeration as per the provisions of the Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1976'). Of course there is the contention of the petitioners that the master plan showing the urban agglomeration was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1976 which shall be dealt with at a later stage. The fact remains that in view of the Act of 1976 and the location of the land and as the land held by petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Lalbhai Vasa (for the sake of convenience, shall be referred as the petitioners), were exceeding the ceiling limit, form under Section 6 of the Act was filed. It appears that pending the consideration of the form, Lalbhai Vasa expired and therefore the draft statement was served upon the petitioners and ultimately on 10.01.1984, following lands were declared as surplus land. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_547_TLGJ0_2006Html1.htm</FRM> Therefore, agricultural land bearing City Survey No. 1319, 1400 and 1401 admeasuring 110 sq. mtr. situated at Kalupur, the land bearing Survey No. 15/1 admeasuring 586 sq. mtr. and survey No. 15/2 admeasuring 304 sq. mtr. both situated at Maktampur were permitted as retainable land.

(2.) It appears that the appeal was preferred against the said order dated 10.01.1984 of the competent authority before the Urban Land Tribunal being Appeal No. 3/90. In the said Appeal, the Urban Land Tribunal observed that whether the property situated at Kalupur was constructed property or not is not considered properly by the competent authority and therefore, ultimately the Urban Land Tribunal passed the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.1992, whereby the order of the competent authority dated 10.01.1984 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the competent authority for disposal in accordance with law as well as in light of the observations made in the Judgment of the Urban Land Tribunal. It appears that thereafter, pursuant to the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal in Appeal, the competent authority once again considered the matter and found that exemption application has been cancelled and no documentary evidence is produced to show the authorised construction over the property so as to exclude it for the purpose of computation and therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence, the land was to be treated as vacant land and therefore, the order dated 25.08.1992 was passed by the competent authority declaring the retainable land of 1000 sq. mtr. comprising of the land situated at Kalupur admeasuring 110 sq. mtr. and the land bearing Survey No. 15/1 at Maktampur admeasuring 890 sq. mtr. and the remaining lands were declared as surplus land. It appears that thereafter, there was also correction order dated 30.02.1993 for proper description of the land bearing Survey No. 17/2 at village Maktampur, which was also declared as surplus land. The petitioners further carried the matter before the Urban Land Tribunal against the order dated 25.08.1992 of the competent authority being Appeal No. 182/93 and the said appeal for the reasons stated in the order, was dismissed as per the Judgment dated 29.03.1995. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached to this Court by preferring the the petition for challenging the orders passed by the competent authority and its confirmation thereof by the Urban Land Tribunal declaring the land as mentioned in the order as surplus land.

(3.) Heard Mr. A.J. Patel for the petitioners and Mr. Gori, learned AGP for the State Authorities. For the sake of convenience, the contentions raised on behalf of either side shall be dealt to the extent found relevant by this Court hereinafter. Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised the contention that the land in question at Maktampur was outside the master plan, inasmuch as, on the date when the Act came into force, the master plan was not in existence and he alternatively submitted that such master plan, if any, was not providing for stagewise development of the area and therefore, is not master plan to meet with the requirement of the law as per Section 2(h) of the Act of 1976. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in case of Udhav Tatya Bhopale Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 539 of 1983 decided on 10/13.04.1992 for contending that the master plan as required to meet with the conditions of Section 2(h) of the Act of 1976 must provide for stagewise development of the area and in absence thereof, the same cannot be treated as master plan satisfying the conditions of Section 2(h) of the Act, 1976. He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Smt. Atia Mohammadi Begum, v. State of U.P. and others reported at AIR 1993 SC 2465 read with the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in case of State of A.P. & Ors. Vs. N. Audikesava Reddy & Ors. reported at AIR 2002 SC 5 for contending that on the relevant date, for applying the provisions of the Act, there has to be master plan for the land in question and he further submitted that in case if there is no master plan for the land in question so as to meet with the requirement under Section 2(h) of the Act of 1976, the provisions of the Act would not be applicable nor the land can be declared as surplus land irrespective of the conduct of the petitioners of having filled form under Section 6 of the Act on the impression that the land is falling within the urban agglomeration and the Act of 1976 is applicable.