VISHNUBHAI PRABHASHANKAR RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated October 1984 passed by the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Ahmedabad, in exercise of powers under section 8 (4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act) as well as the order dated 30th June 1989 passed by the Urban Land Tribunal and Ex-Officio Secretary to the Government Revenue Department (Tribunal) under section 33 of the Act in Appeal No.AHMEDABAD-129/87.

(2.) The facts involved in the present petition move in a very narrow compass. The petitioner along with his wife is the owner and occupant of land of sub plots No.7 and 8 of Final Plot No.472 of Paldi, Ahmedabad. The petitioner had submitted Form No.1 under the provisions of section 6(1) of the Act on 24.5.1976, pursuant to which the Competent Authority issued a draft statement dated 11.10.1972 along with a notice under section 8(3) of the Act. In the draft statement, the total holding of the petitioner was shown to be 1096 sq. mts., out of which 96 sq. mts. of land was held to be excess vacant land liable to be handed over to the State Government. Pursuant to the said draft statement, reply of the petitioner was recorded on 7.12.1983 and 22.12.1983. It appears that the petitioner did not raise any objection against the draft statement, but submitted that he had made an application under section 20 of the Act to the State Government seeking exemption from the provisions of Chapter III of the Act. Subsequently, it appears that by notice dated 3.3.1984, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why his holding should not be held to be 1346.16.12 sq. mts. and as to why 346.16.12 sq. mts. of land from his holding should not be declared as excess vacant land. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner appeared through an advocate and it was submitted that the petitioner was not the owner of the land forming part of the road, hence, the same cannot be considered as part of his holding and that land which admittedly formed part of a road cannot be said to be vacant land.

(3.) By the impugned order dated October, 1984, the Competent Authority in exercise of powers under section 8(4) of the Act declared the total holding of the petitioner to be 1346.16.22 sq. mts. out of which 346.16.22 sq. mts. of land was held to be excess vacant.