STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MADHUBINDU JAYSHANKER VYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been filed by the State of Gujarat under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal dated 22nd January, 1999 passed in Review Application No. Jamnagar/31/98 in allowing the said review application by modifying its earlier order and declaring that no land of the original declarant - respondent No. 1 herein is required to be declared as excess vacant land on the basis of the order passed by the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Jamnagar, and further passing the order to close the form. By way of amendment, it is also further prayed for an appropriate order to declare that the sale transaction in favour of M/s. Sagar Raj Land Developers - respondent No. 2 (joined as per the order dated 19th October, 2005 passed in Civil Application No. 9808 of 2005) by way of registered sale deed dated 14th May, 1999 as illegal and void and therefore, to be set aside.

(2.) AT the outset, it is to be observed that this is a unique case of fraud by the original land owner in connivance with the Urban Land Tribunal and/or office of Urban Land Ceiling Department and at the outset, it is also required to be noted that by way of impugned judgment and order dated 22nd January, 1999, the tribunal while exercising the powers of review, has set aside its earlier order, which was, in fact, confirmed by this Court upto the Division Bench by way of Letters Patent Appeal and in fact, decided the review application within a period of two and half months only, which was filed after almost 11 years, more particularly, when the Urban Land Ceiling Act was to be repealed. The review application was presented by the respondent No. 1 - original declarant before the Urban Land Tribunal on 14th November, 1998 and the same came to be allowed vide order dated 22nd January, 1999 and that the Urban land Ceiling Act came to be repealed w. e. f. 31st March, 1999.

(3.) FEW facts are necessary for the purpose of determination of the present Special Civil Application and to appreciate the fact that how and in what manner, the original declarant/land owner has played mischief and fraud.