SHIVLAL THAKERSHI GOTECHA Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these three petitions the common question which requires determination is whether the Urban Land Tribunal constituted under sec. 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Urban Land Ceiling Act has jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default or whether the provisions of Order 41 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the Tribunal and that the Tribunal can dismiss the appeal for default.

(2.) In Special Civil Application No. 2635 of 1986 the Additional Urban Land Tribunal and Ex-Officio Secretary to the Government. Revenue Department Ahmedabad by the order dated 15/03/1986 dismissed the Appeal No. APL/UL/RAJKOT-138/1983 filed under sec. 32 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act on the ground that when the appeal was called out neither the appellants nor their advocate were present. Restoration application was filed by the petitioner. In the said application number of grounds for restoration were given. The Tribunal dismissed the said application by holding that there was no sufficient ground shown for re-admitting the appeal.

(3.) In Special Civil Application No. 2660 of 1986 the same Tribunal by the order dated 15/03/1986 dismissed the Appeal No. APL/UL/ RAJKOT-14/1983 as neither the appellants nor their advocate remained present at the hearing of the appeal. It is the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners advocate had sent a telegram requesting the Tribunal to adjourn the matter. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application dated 19/ 20/03/1986 requesting the Tribunal to restore the appeal by pointing out various grounds for restoration. The Tribunal dismissed the said application by holding that no sufficient cause was shown for re-admitting the appeal. It be noted that no hearing was given to the petitioners before dismissing the restoration application.