CHOTABHAI SHANKERBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Competent Authority at Vadodara (respondent No. 2 herein) on 12th November 1984 under Sec. 8 (4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 3 herein) on 28th February 1995 in Appeal No. Vadodara-41 of the 1994 is under challenge in this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondent No. 2 declared the holding of one Chhotabhai Shankarbhai Patel (the deceased for convenience) to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 16793 square metres.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The deceased filed his declaration in the prescribed form under Sec. 6(1) of the Act with respect to his holding within the urban agglomeration of Vadodara. His holding included one parcel of land bearing survey No. 691 situated in village Gorwa within the urban agglomeration of Vadodara (the disputed land for convenience). By the order passed by and on behalf of the State Government (respondent No. 1 herein) on 3rd January 1980, exemption under Sec. 20(1) of the Act was granted qua the disputed land on certain terms and conditions. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. In that view of the matter, respondent No. 2 did not process the decision filed by the deceased. It appears that, later on, the deceased through his Advocate indicated to respondent No. 3 that his form may be processed as the disputed land was not used for agricultural operations and it was converted into the non-agricultural land. He requested respondent No. 2 to treat the exemption granted by the order at Annexure-C to this petition as cancelled. Thereupon, respondent No. 2 reopened the case and processed the declaration filed by the deceased. After observing necessary formalities under Sec. 8 of the Act, by his order passed on 12th November 1984 under Sub-sec. (4) thereof, respondent No. 2 declared the holding of the deceased to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 16793 square metres. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. It appears that the deceased did not carry the matter in appeal and accepted the aforesaid order passed by respondent No. 2. It appears that, after his demise, the present petitioner as his heir and legal representative carried the matter in appeal before respondent No. 3 under Sec. 33 of the Act, nearly ten years after the date of the order at Annexure-A to this petition. It came to be registered as Appeal No. Vadodara-41 of 1994. By his order passed on 28th February 1995, respondent No. 3 dismissed the aforesaid appeal. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon approached this court by means of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure-A to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-B to this petition.

(3.) Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Sompura for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection against maintainability of this petition on the ground of inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this court for challenging inter alia the appellate order at Annexure-B to this petition. Learned Advocate Shri Patel for the petitioner has submitted that delay in approaching this court inter alia for challenging the appellate order at Annexure-B to this petition has been explained in paragraph 6 of the memo of petition.