GANSHYAMKUMAR GORDHANDAS BOSAMIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Revenue Department (respondent No. 2 herein) on behalf of the State Government (respondent No. 1 herein) on 30th January, 1984 under Sec. 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) is under challenge in this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, respondent No. 1 set aside the order passed by the Competent Authority on 6th November, 1982 granting permission to petitioner No. 9 to sell two parcels of land from lands bearing Survey Nos. 320 and 391 situated at Vejalpur within the urban agglomeration or Ahmedabad under Sec. 27 of the Act.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The lands bearing survey Nos. 320 and 391 belonged to petitioner No. 9. He was holding other lands also within the urban agglomeration of Ahmedabad. He filed his declaration in the prescribed form under Sec. 6(1) of the Act with respect to his holding within the urban agglomeration of Ahmedabad. Thereafter he applied for permission under Sec. 27 of the Act to sell to petitioners Nos. 1 to 8 some area in all admeasuring 5974 square meters from the aforesaid two parcels of land bearing survey Nos. 320 and 391. By his order passed on 6th November, 1982 under Sec. 27 of the Act, the Competent Authority at Ahmedabad granted such permission on certain terms and conditions. Its copy is at Annexure E to this petition. It may be noted that the area sold by petitioner No. 9 to petitioners Nos. 1 to 8 had construction upto the plinth level to the tune of 1500 square yards in survey Nos. 391 and 1005 square yards in survey No. 320. It appears that the permission at Annexure E to this petition came to the notice of the concerned officer of respondent No. 1. He appears to have found it not according to law. Its suo motu revision 135 under Sec. 34 was therefore contemplated. A show-cause notice thereupon came to be issued on 15th January, 1983 calling upon the petitioners herein to show cause why the aforesaid permission at Annexure E to this petition should not be revised. Its copy is at Annexure F to this petition. Petitioner No. 9 filed his reply thereto. Its copy is at Annexure G to this petition. By the order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 30th January, 1984 under Sec. 34 of the Act, respondent No. 1 set aside the order granting permission at Annexure E to this petition. Its copy is at Annexure H to this petition. Thereafter the declaration in the prescribed form filled in by petitioner No. 9 was processed by the Competent Authority. By his order passed on 15th May, 1984 under Sec. 8(4) of the Act, the Competent Authority declared the holding of petitioner No. 9 to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 9382 square meters. Its copy is at Annexure I to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 30th January, 1984 at Annexure H to this petition and the order passed by the Competent Authority on 15th May, 1984 at Annexure I to this petition.

(3.) It transpires from the impugned order at Annexure H to this petition that the permission under Sec. 27 of the Act was cancelled only on the ground that there was no material on record to show that the area sold by petitioner No. 9 to petitioners Nos. 1 to 8 had any construction therein on the date of coming into force of the Act. This finding recorded by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 in the impugned order at Annexure H to this petition is challenged by and on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that it is perverse.