MUKTINAGAR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society registered on 31/08/1981 The petitioner purchased land bearing S. No. 20 of village Thaltej from original owner Bhikaji Chhaganji and Manguben Chhaganji. According to the petitioner exemption under Sec. 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was granted by order dated 26/05/1981 in respect of the land. Hence the petitioner had purchased the land and executed a sale deed on 23/09/1981 In respect of the land the owner of the land had filled in form under Sec. 6 of the Act. The Competent Authority held as per order Annexure G dated 31/01/1984 that land admeasuring 1327 sq. mts. of Survey No. 20/3/A of village Thaltej was in excess of the ceiling limit. The competent authority also issued notice under Sec. 10(6) of the Act dated 10/12/1986 By this notice under Sec. 10(6) of the Act the land holder was directed to remain present for handing over possession of the land declared surplus. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order Annexure G dated 31/01/1984 and notice Annexure H dated 10/12/1985 ... ... ... ... ... ...

(2.) It is contended that as disclosed in order dated 31-1-1984 Annexure G to the petition the petitioner society had purchased the land. It also transpires from the order that the petitioner society had put up construction on the land in question. Therefore it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard before passing the final order. The contention cannot I am accepted. It is an admitted position that the petitioner society was not even in existence on the date of commencement of the Act. The petitioner has come into existence on 31/08/1981 that is the date of the registration of the petitioner society. On the date of commencement of the Act there was no agreement with the petitioner society nor was the petitioner society in possession of the land. Thus admittedly the petitioner society had no interest in the land on the date of commencement of the Act. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that after the Act came into force no interest in the vacant land can be transferred except in accordance with law. If any such transfer takes place otherwise than in accordance with law the transfer is void. This is so provided in Sec. 5 of the Act. Therefore even if the competent authority came to know about the alleged sale deed and unlawful construction put up by the petitioner society on the land in question it was not at all necessary for the competent authority to issue notice to it and afford an opportunity of being heard to it.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even for showing that the transfer was not void the petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity of being hear This contention also cannot be accepted. If the petitioner felt that it had interest in the land it was for the petitioner to submit its claim at the appropriate stage. Here. reference may be made to provisions of Sec. 10 of the Act. After the final statement under Sec. 9 of the Act is served upon the land holder the competent authority is required to publish a Notification in official Gazette under Sec. 10(1) of the Act. In this Notification the competent authority is required to state that the vacant land in question is to be acquired by the State Government and that claims of all persons interested in such vacant land may be made by them personally or by their agents giving particulars of the nature of their interest in such land. Thereafter the competent authority is required to the into consideration the claim that may be made by persons interested in the vacant land on consideration of the claims made by the persons interested in the vacant land the competent authority is required to determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such orders as it deems fit. An order passed by the competent authority under Sec. 10 of the Act is an appealable order. If any person feels aggrieved by order passed by the competent authority under Sec 10(2) of the Act the same can be challenged in appeal under Sec. 33 of the Act (See: Judgment in Spl. C. A. No. 813 of 1987 decided on 1/08/1987 Reported in Vijaya Bank Ahmedabad v. State of Gujarat 1987 (2) GLR 1118). It is not the case of the petitioner that the competent authority had not issued notification under Sec. 10(1) of the Act and that the petitioner could not prefer its claim because no such Notification was issued. In fact without issuing this Notification the competent authority could not have proceeded further could not have issued Notification under Sec. 10(6) of the Act which is produced at Annexure H to the petition. In view of the aforesaid position it is clear that while passing the order Annexure G to the petition the competent authority was not required to issue notice to the petitioner and afford an opportunity of being heard to it. However it was open to the petitioner to lodge its claim pursuant to Notification under Sec. 10(1) of the Act. The petitioner has not lodged any such claim. Had the petitioner lodged its claim the competent authority would have decided it in accordance with law. Therefore the petitioner cannot be heard to say that order Annexure G to the petition declaring 1327 sq. mts. of land of S. No. 20/3/A of village Thaltej is in excess of the land be held to be illegal and void.