NOBLE RUBBER INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Noble Rubber Industries through its constituted Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Chhabildas C. Sheth seeking declaration that the proceedings initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), in respect of the land of the petitioner have been abated on coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repeal Act'), consequently for the declaration that the petitioner continued to be the owner, and in possession of the land in question. The petitioner has also prayed for the directions restraining the respondents from acting upon the orders passed or notifications issued by the respondent No.2, and the mutation entry effected in the revenue record in respect of the land in question, and from taking possession of the land in question from the petitioner or from Compack Private Limited.

(2.) As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner owned and possessed the land bearing Survey No. 39 admeasuring 3845 sq. mtrs. of village Atladara, Taluka and District Baroda. The petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell the said land to M/s. Compack Private Limited on 19.05.1979 (Annexure 'A'). The possession of the land was also handed over to M/s. Compack Private Limited as per the separate agreement (Annexure 'B'). The petitioner, on coming into force of the said Act, had filled in the Form No. 1 under Section 6 of the said Act. The said form having been processed by the competent authority and Deputy Collector, it was held that the petitioner was having 2243 sq. mtrs. of land as the excess vacant land, as per the order dated 31.05.1984 (Annexure 'C'). It is further case of the petitioner that thereafter the competent authority fixed the compensation for the said land as per the order dated 01.06.1985 passed under Section 11 of the said Act (Annexure 'D'). According to the petitioner, the petitioner was neither served with any notice under Section 10 (5) of the said Act nor was paid any compensation, nor the possession of the land in question was taken by the respondents at any point of time, however, a panchnama was prepared by the respondent No.2 with a view to show that the possession was taken over from the petitioner on 26.02.1985. It is further the case of the petitioner that the name of the petitioner had continued in the Village Form Nos. 7 and 12 in respect of the land in question till the year 2000, and in the meantime, the Repeal Act came into force. According to the petitioner, since the actual physical possession of the land in question was not taken over from the petitioner by the respondent authorities on the date of coming into force of the Repeal Act, the proceedings under the said Act had stood abated, and therefore, the present petition for declaration and other reliefs was filed.

(3.) The petition was resisted by the respondents by filing reply contending inter alia that the land had already vested in the Government pursuant to the notification issued under Section 10 (3) of the said Act, and the possession thereof was also taken over by the respondent ­ State after following the due process of law under Section 10(5) of the said Act as back as on 26.02.1985 by drawing the panchnama (Annexure 'G'). It is also further contended that the competent authority had passed an order on 01.06.1985 for awarding compensation, and prior to the said proceedings, the petitioner was served with the notice by registered post which was served on the petitioner, as per Annexure 'R -IV'. According to the respondents, the relevant entries with regard to the orders passed by the competent authority were also made in the revenue record.