RAMILABEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Competent Authority at Surat (respondent No. 2 herein) on 29th October 1988 under Sec. 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) as affirmed in revision by the order passed by and on behalf of the State Government (respondent No. 1 herein) on 6th March 1995 under Sec. 34 thereof is under challenge in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondent No. 2 declared the holding of the deceased predecessor-in-title (the deceased for convenience) of the petitioner herein to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 6137.04 square metres. By the other impugned order, respondent No. 1 upwardly revised the order of respondent No. 2 and declared the holding of the deceased to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 7802.64 square metres.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The deceased filed his declaration in the prescribed from under Sec. 6(1) of the Act with respect to his holding within the urban agglomeration of Surat. Before it was processed, the deceased breathed his last some time on 10th May, 1980 leaving behind him his widow, one son and one daughter. Later on, his declaration was processed by respondent No. 2. After observing necessary formalities under Sec. 8 of the Act, by his order passed on 29th October 1988 under Sub-sec. (4) thereof, respondent No. 2 declared the holding of the deceased to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 6137.04 square metres, its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. It appears that it came to the notice of concerned officer of respondent No. 1. He appears to have found it not according to law. Its suo motu revision was therefore contemplated under Sec. 34 of the Act. A show cause notice of 23rd November 1991 thereupon came to be issued calling upon the widow of the deceased to show cause why the order at Annexure-C to this petition should not be revised. A reply thereto was filed on 15th January 1992. After hearing the parties, by the order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 6th March 1995, the order at Annexure-C to this petition was upwardly revissed and the holding of the deceased was declared to be surplus by 7802.64 square metres. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. It appears that, by the time this petition came to be filed, the widow of the deceased also breathed her last leaving behind her the present petitioner as her surviving son. He was aggrieved by the order at Annexure-A to this petition. He has therefore approached this court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning its correctness. He has also questioned the correctness of the order at Annexure-C to this petition.

(3.) As rightly submitted by learned Advocate Shri Shah for the petitioner, the constructed property has to be excluded from the holding of the deceased in view of the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Meera Gupta vs. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court at page 1567. Respondent No. 2 has wrongly included the house property in the holding of the petitioner. It has to be excluded.