KANCHANLAL THAKORDAS Vs. URBAN LAND CEILING TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One deceased Thakorbhai Kanjibhai was the father of petitioners No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and husband of petitioner No. 2. The said Thakorbhai had two brothers Hasmukhbhai Kanjibhai and Manilal Kanjibhai. The said Thakorbhai died on 17.6.1975 leaving behind him the petitioners as his hairs and legal representatives.

(2.) The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners in the appeal were not accepted with the result, the appeal raised. The appellate authority also has observed that the certificate of birth of one of the petitioners viz. Renukaben produced in the appeal was not considered reliable. The order of the competent authority came to be confirmed by the appellate authority. Hence, this petition under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners.

(3.) After calling for the original record in the case of the petitioners and after hearing the learned advocates for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-authorities, this court is of the opinion that there is a fit case for remand of the matter to the competent authority. The order of the competent authority shows that the authority had considered the statements in Form No. 1 u/s. 6 (1) of the ULC Act filed by Kanchanlal Thakorbhai, Natverlal Hasmukhlal Patel and Hasmukhlal Kanjibhai Patel. The petitioners are heirs of Thakorbhai who were heard. However, the record does not show that the competent authority had heared Natverlal Hasmukhal Patel and Hasmukhlal Kanjibhai Patel. Prima facie, one would carry an impression that all the three statements in Form I u/s. 6 (1) of the ULC Act were considered and decided. It was stated at the bar that statements in Form I u/s. 6 (1) filed by other two persons viz., Natverlal Hasmukhlal Patel and Hasmukhlal Kanjibhai Patel are yet not finalised. The case of the petitioners is that there were three co-owners in respect of the disputed properties. It is also the case of the petitioners that the constructed portion is also considered as vacant land. Obviously, there is likelihood of prejudice being caused to the other Party whose statement are not finalised. According to the settled proposition of law, qualified constructed property is required to be exempted from vacant land in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court. This aspect is also not considered by the competent authority and also by the appellate authority. With a view to see that complete justice is done and also to see that no complication arises or prejudice is caused, it would be expedient and desirable to direct the competent authority to decide and dispose of all the three firms simultaneously after giving them opportunity of hearing. In the result, the impugned orders of the competent authority and the appellate authority are quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the competent authority with a direction to consider and hold inquiry in respect of the three firms of the family members simultaneously after giving them an opportunity of hearing. The competent authority is, therefore, directed to pass appropriate orders after giving them an opportunity and to decide in accordance with law. It is also clarified that the competent authority shall permit the parties to submit evidence if they so desire. Petition is accordingly partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.