SHRADDHABEN BABULAL VITHLANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the action of the respondent-State Government in acquiring the excess vacant land under the Urban Land [Ceiling & Regulation] Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"].

(2.) On introduction of the Act, the petitioner, the holder of the land within the urban agglomeration of Rajkot City, made a declaration of his holding in Form-I as envisaged by Section 6 of the Act. After processing the said Form-I, the competent authority held that of his total holding of 2129.57 sq.m., the petitioner was entitled to retain 1500 sq.m of land and the land admeasuring 629.57 sq.m was held to be surplus. Accordingly, a draft statement was prepared and was served to the petitioner on 2nd March, 1979 under Section 8 [3] of the Act. Under the said draft statement, the petitioner was allowed to retain the lands of Survey No. 498, plot no.3; Survey No. 499, plot No. 52, and part of plot no.25 of Survey No. 488. The remainder of the said plot no.25 and the land Survey No. 488, plot no. 26 admeasuring 629.57 sq.m in aggregate was declared to be "excess vacant land". Under communication dated 8th March, 1979, the petitioner informed the competent authority that the draft statement was acceptable to him and was binding to him. Pursuant to the said communication, final statement under Section 9 of the Act was drawn in terms of the said draft statement. Notification under Section 10 [1] of the Act was issued on 16th November, 1981, and was published in the official gazette on 26th November, 1981. By Notification dated 25th February, 1982 issued under Section 10 [3] of the Act and published in Official Gazette on 15th April, 1982, the said excess vacant land was vested in the State Government. Since vesting of the land, notice to hand over possession of the excess vacant land under Section 10 [5] of the Act was issued on 30th November, 1983. The possession of the excess vacant land was taken over on 29th October, 1986. In the meantime, the proceeding for determination of the premium had also taken place. By Order dated 22nd February, 1984 made by the competent authority, the premium of the excess vacant land was determined.

(3.) The petitioner has approached this Court sixteen years after the process was completed, as above. He has now claimed that the notice under Section 10 [1] of the Act was given in respect of the land Survey No. 488, plot no.25-paiki and not in respect of plot no. 26. The Notification issued under Section 10 [3] of the Act also mentioned the plot no.25-paiki admeasuring 629.57 sq.m. which obviously was erroneous. He has submitted that the total area of the plot no.25 was 509 sq.m., out of which the petitioner was allowed to retain 388 sq.m. of land. The State Government, therefore, could not have acquired 629.57 sq.m. of land from the said plot no.25. As there is no vesting of plot no.26 at all, the action of the State Government in taking over possession of the part of the plot no.25 and plot no.26 is illegal, null and void. The possession having continued with the petitioner, in view of Sections 3 & 4 of the Urban Land [Ceiling & Regulation] Repeal Act, 1999, the proceeding in respect of the said excess vacant land shall stand abated. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to retain whole of the plots nos. 25 & 26. The petitioner has also stated that he has constructed two houses on part of the land plot no. 25 which was, under the final statement, allowed to be retained by him. If the Government is permitted to acquire land of plot no.25, as indicated in its Notification, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss.