ISHWARLAL P PATEL Vs. EX OFFICIO SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Competent Authority at Surat on 14th June 1986 under Sec. 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Ceiling Act for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the respondent herein) on 19th March 1986 in Appeal No. Surat-18 of 1985 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, the Competent Authority at Surat declared the holding of one Bikiben widow of Baojibhai Patel (the deceased for convenience) to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 20151 square metres.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The deceased filed her declaration in the prescribed form under Sec. 6 (1) of the Ceiling Act. It was duly processed by the Competent Authority at Surat. After observing necessary formalities under Sec. 8 of the Act, by his order passed on 14th June 1984 under Sub-sec. (4) thereof, the Competent Authority at Surat declared the holding of the deceased to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 20151 square metres. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. The deceased carried the matter in appeal before the respondent under Sec. 33 of the Ceiling Act. It came to be registered as Appeal No. Surat-18 of 1985. By the order passed on 19th March 1986, the respondent dismissed it on the ground of default of appearance. Its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. It appears that the deceased breathed her last thereafter leaving behind her the present petitioner as her heir and legal representative. It appears that the disposal of the appeal was not brought to the notice of the deceased or the present petitioner by her learned Advocate. When the petitioner came to know of the appellate order at Annexure-D to this petition, he was aggrieved thereby. He has thereupon approached this court by means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure-C to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-D to this petition.

(3.) As transpiring from the appellate order at Annexure-D to this petition, the appeal from the deceased was dismissed for default of appearance. The respondent could not have done so in view of the ruling of this court in the case of Shivlal Thakershi Gotecha vs. Competent Authority, reported in 1987 (1) 28 (1) Gujarat Law Reporter at page 267. It has clearly been held therein that the appellate authority under Sec. 33 of the Act has no power to dismiss an appeal for default of appearance.