LATABEN Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that, as per the petitioners, qua the land bearing Survey No. 284 situated at Vadodara, the petitioners had acquired the right. However, as per the respondent authority, the petitioners had no interest over the land. It appears that Form No.6 under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed by deceased Becharbhai G. Patel on behalf of the family, but in the list of the members of the family, the name of Becharbhai and his wife were shown and no minor sons were shown nor any interest of the major son or daugher was shown.

(2.) It appears that thereafter, the said Becharbhai expired on 07.06.1980. The competent authority after scrutinising the form filed under the Act, issued draft statement under Section 8 of the Act and in response to the draft statement, the son of the deceased Becharbhai, Shri Harmanbhai appeared and submitted the reply. It may be recorded that as per the mutation entry in the revenue record vide No. 3144, the legal heirs of deceased Becharbhai were shown as Shri Harmanbhai and Jamnaben being widow. The competent authority ultimately for the reasons recorded in the order found that the land admeasuring 1668 Sq. Mtrs. deserves to be declared as surplus land and accordingly, order was passed under Section 8(4) of the Act. It appears that thereafter, Notification dated 12.11.1980 under Section 10(1) of the Act was also issued in pursuance to the order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act on 29.11.1984. Thereafter, the Notification under Section 10(3) of the Act was also issued on 07.02.1985 for vesting of the land in Government. It appears that thereafter, on 24.05.1985, notice was given under Section 10(5) of the Act for taking over of the possession and on 27.09.1985, possession of the surplus land admeasuring 1668 sq. mtrs. bearing Survey No. 284 at village Gorva (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question') was taken over and not only that but, Harmanbhai, son of deceased Becharbhai had entrusted the possession to the competent authority and accordingly, the proceedings as such were already concluded under the Act.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner herein, i.e. Lataben Becharbhai, claiming herself to be the daughter of Becharbhai having derived the interest under the family settlement, by contending that no notice was served upon her, preferred an appeal under Section 33 of the Act before the Urban Land Tribunal being Appeal No. 10/93 after a period of about 8 years from the date on which the possession was taken over and after a period of about 9 years from the date on which the final order came to be passed under Section 8(4) of the Act. The said Appeal as per the order dated 30.04-06.1994 came to be dismissed by the Urban Land Tribunal. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners preferred the present petition for challenging the order passed by the Tribunal and the petitioners has prayed that it may be declared that no land remains with the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 out of Survey No. 284 since the petitioners are entitled to the additional unit and therefore, the holding was within the permissible limit.