MULIBEN BACHUBHAI BHARWAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Bharvad Laxman Vala was the original onwer of the agricultural lands situated at Rajkot. On introduction of the Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as, Sthe Act ), he declared his holding as envisaged by Section 6 of the Act. The said declaration was processed by the competent authority. Pending the matter before the competent authority, the petitioner had applied for exemption under Section 20 of the Act on the ground that the lands in question were cultivated by him and that the same were required for personal cultivation for the maintenance of his family. The said application for exemption came to be rejected on 17th December, 1983.

(2.) Since the rejection of the said application, on 13th June, 1984 the competent authority passed order under Section 8(4) of the Act. The final statement under Section 9 of the Act was drawn on 12th July, 1984. The petitioner's holding to the extent of 32,628.50 sq.meters was held to be excess vacant land. Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 21st July, 1984. By notification issued on 12th February, 1985 under Section 10(3) of the Act, the excess vacant land was vested in the State Government. Notice under C of the Act for handing over possession was issued on 6th May, 1986. Before the possession of the excess vacant land could be taken over under Section 10(6) of the Act, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.3188/1986 before this Court to challenge the above referred order dated 17th December, 1983. The said Special Civil Application No.3188/1986 came to be dismissed on 6th December, 1990 (Coram : G.T.Nanavati, J. as he then was, and S.D.Shah, J.). Since the aforesaid order dated 6th December, 1990, according to the State Government, the possession of the excess vacant land was taken over on 10th October, 1991 as envisaged by Section 10(6) of the Act.

(3.) Dave has joined issue at this juncture. Mr. Dave has submitted that the alleged possession taken over by the State Government is not in accordance with Section 10(6) of the Act, is not legal and valid. He has relied upon the further affidavit made by the petitioner. He has submitted that the possession of the land is with the petitioner till the date. The petitioner is in possession of the excess vacant land and the petitioner has been cultivating the said excess vacant land. He has submitted that in view of the Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulations) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as, Sthe Act of 1999 ), all proceedings pending under the Act in respect of the excess vacant have stood abated.