STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NATVERLAL MAHJIBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that on 09.03.1984, the respondent No.1 Natwarlal Majijibhai Patel filed a Form under Section 6 of the Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Pursuant to the said Form, on 27.03.1984, notice was issued to the respondent No.1 under Section 8(1) of the Act alongwith the draft statement. No objections were filed. However, the original record was called for by the Court during the course of the hearing and the perusal of thereof shows that the intimations were given to the respondent No.1 on various dates through Registered A.D. Post and there are A.D. Slips in the file of the competent authority signed by the respondent No.1 on various dates 03.12.1984 and another in which the date of the postal stamp is not legible. Further, in the original record, it appears that the respondent No.1 on 01.08.1984 and 12.12.1984 had applied for adjournment. It appears that thereafter, on 20.12.1984, the order came to be passed by the competent authority for declaring the land bearing Survey No.205 as excess land and the other agricultural land which were over the agricultural zone in the master plan were excluded for the purpose of computing the holding of the respondent No.1. It may also be recorded that thereafter, the notifications were issued for declaring the land bearing Survey No.205 admeasuring 5364 (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question') as excess land under the Act. The intimation prior to the publication of the notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was given on 31.12.1984 and the original file shows that there are A.D. slips signed by the respondent No.1 forwarded on 19.02.1985 and A.D. received on 23.02.1985. It appears that thereafter, the notification under Section 10(1)of the Act was published on 08.04.2005 for inviting claims and in the file of the competent authority there is one A.D. slip for the post forwarded on 30.04.1985, received on 06.05.1985. Thereafter, notification under Section 10(3) was published on 29.06.1985 and the land came to be vested in the Government pursuant to the said notification. The proceedings under Section 10(5) for taking over the possession were also initiated and the intimation was given for taking over of the possession to the respondent No.1 vide communication dated 07.10.1985 and the file contains A.D. Slip signed by the respondent No.1 and the postal endorsement appears to be of 13.01.1986. Ultimately, on 25.03.1986, the possession is taken over of the excess land and the pertinent aspect is that, in the possession receipt, the respondent No.1 has voluntarily signed for entrustment of the possession and has further signed for entrusting for voluntarily handing over of the possession of the excess land. The file further shows that the proceedings for payment of the compensation is also finalised and during the course of finalisation of the compensation, two intimations with the A.D. slip signed by respondent No.1 dated 01.10.1986 is on record. The final order under Section 11 appears to have been passed on 23.07.1987 for fixing the amount of compensation. However, there is no record showing that whether the compensation was actually paid or not since the intimation for disbursement of payment was forwarded to the concerned office for payment.

(2.) It appears that the respondent No.1 had also submitted an application under Section 21 of the Act for putting dwelling house for the weaker section on 09.03.1984 and in the said application, vide para 3, it was also mentioned that the land shown in the master plan is for residential purpose.

(3.) It appears that in the year 1994, i.e. roughly after a period of about more than 9 years, appeal came to be preferred by the respondent No.1 before the Urban Land Tribunal being Appeal No. 54/1994. From the original file of the competent authority, in the noting, there is no reference of receipt of the intimation of preferring of the appeal or the representation made in this regard before the appellate authority, but it appears that Mr. A.N. Munshi, advocate of respondent No.1, on 09.02.1995 has produced the copy of the order of the appellate authority for pursuing the matter before the competent authority to proceed further in accordance with law in view of the order of the appellate Tribunal. In the said appeal, it appears that there was no separate application for condonation of delay explaining the delay for about 10 years. In the order, there is no reference as to whether any representation was made on behalf of the competent authority. However, ultimately, the Urban Land Tribunal on 27.01.1995, passed the order of allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of the competent authority. It is under these circumstances, the present petition is preferred by the State Government and the competent authority before this Court.