KUNVERBEN KALYAN Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arises from the proceeding under the Urban Land [Ceiling & Regulation] Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as, Sthe Act of 1976 ]. The petitioners before this Court are the heirs and successors-in-title of one Kalyan Karshan. The petitioners have challenged the Order dated 24th October, 1985 made by the Competent Authority under Section 8 [4] of the Act of 1976 confirmed by Order dated 28th September, 1989 made by the Urban Land Tribunal in Appeal No. RAJKOT-33 of 1989.

(2.) It appears that the aforesaid Kalyan Karshan held certain agricultural lands situated within the urban agglomeration of Rajkot City. Upon introduction of the Act of 1976 with effect from 17th February, 1976, the said Kalyan Karshan filed the statement of his holding in Form-I as envisaged by sub-section [1] of Section 6 of the Act. According to the particulars entered in the said statement, the said Kalyan Karshan held the lands in question as an individual and that no other person had interest in the said lands. Pending proceedings before the Competent Authority, the said Kalyan Karshan passed away on 24th January, 1978 leaving behind the present petitioners as his heirs and successors-in-title. In answer to the draft statement served under Section 8 [3] of the Act of 1976, the present petitioners lodged their objection on 2nd August, 1983. On 24th October, 1985, the competent authority made Order as envisaged by section 8 [4] of the Act of 1976. By the said Order, the said Shri Kalyan Karshan was held to be in possession of the vacant land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of 52,287.55 sq.m. [hereinafter referred to as, Sthe excess vacant land ]. A final statement to that effect, as envisaged by Section 9 of the Act of 1976, was drawn on 30th January, 1986. Pursuant to the said final statement, Notification in respect of the excess vacant land as envisaged by Section 10 [1] of the Act of 1976 was issued on 7th April, 1986 and was published in the official gazette on 24th April, 1986. The excess vacant land was vested in the State Government by Notification dated 24th November, 1986 issued under Section 10 [3] of the Act of 1976. The said Notification was published in the official gazette on 11th December, 1986. The notice under Section 10 [5] of the Act of 1976 to hand over possession of the excess vacant land was given on 30th December, 1986. Long thereafter, in the year 1989, the petitioners preferred above referred Appeal No. 33 of 1989 before the Urban Land Tribunal against the order dated 24th October, 1985 made by the competent authority under Section 8 [4] of the Act of 1976. Pending the said Appeal, the State Government took over possession of the excess vacant land on 27th July, 1989. By its judgment and order dated 20th September, 1989, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioners. However, observed that the action of the State Government in taking over possession of the excess vacant land pending the proceeding before the said Tribunal was in contravention of the interim stay granted by the said Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

(3.) Mr. Nanavati has assailed the decision of the Tribunal and the action of the State Government in taking over the possession of the excess vacant land without following the due procedure. The challenge is many fold. He has submitted that the lands in question were agricultural lands and were being used for agricultural purposes. Indisputably, on the date of the Act, there was no master plan prepared in respect of the said lands. The said lands, therefore, did not fall within the meaning of the words SUrban Land or SVacant Land as defined in the Act. The provisions of the Act, therefore, did not apply to the said lands. He has next submitted that the Rajkot Municipal Corporation had proposed a master plan in respect of the said lands as far back as in the year 1970. The said master plan was sanctioned by the State Government on 22nd March, 1976 i.e., after the date of the Act. If at all the said lands were urban land, as envisaged by the Act, it was only after 22nd March, 1976 and not on the date of the Act. He has submitted that under the said master plan, the said lands were reserved for Regional Park. Under the relevant building regulations, no construction was permitted on lands which were reserved for Regional Park. Hence, the said lands could not be said to be Svacant land as defined in the Act. The said lands were, therefore, absolved from the rigors of the provisions of the Act. In the submission of Mr. Nanavati, Rajkot Urban Development Authority [hereinafter referred to as, Sthe Development Authority ] came to be constituted in the year 1978 under the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976. The draft development plan prepared by the Development Authority which included the lands in question was sanctioned on 27th April, 1988. Under the said development plan, the lands in question were designated as Recreational Zone. No construction was permitted on the lands designated for recreational zone. Hence, from the date of the said plan also, the said lands did not become Svacant land within the meaning of the Act. It was under the revised final development plan sanctioned in the year 2004 that the said lands have been designated as general industrial zone. However, before the date of the revised development plan, the Act came to be repealed on 30th March, 1999 by the Urban Land [Ceiling & Regulation] Repeal Act, 1999. Hence, the lands' being designated as the general industrial zone under the development plan, has no significance for the purpose of the Act of 1976. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal as well as the competent authority below manifestly erred in not holding that the disputed lands were not Svacant land within the meaning of the Act and that they were not susceptible to the proceedings under the Act.