HIMATLAL J VAKHARIA Vs. URBAN LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Which is the starting point of limitation in cases wherein an order passed by the Competent Authority is corrected under the provisions of Sec. 45 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 This in short in the question which calls for examination and answer

(2.) The petitioner is holder of vacant land situated in the urban agglomeration area of Rajkot. In respect of the land held by him the petitioner filled in form under Sec. 6 of the Act and thereafter final statement under Sec 9 of the Act was issued on 30/09/1979 The petitioner in fact consented and thereafter the final statement was issued. In the final statement instead of Survey No. 489 by mistake Survey No. 89 was mentioned. The mistake was corrected as per order dated 24/02/1984 The petitioner preferred appeal under Sec. 33 of the Act on 26/03/1984 The petitioner contended that the appeal was within time because the starting point of limitation should be February 24 J984 and not 30/09/1979 when the original order was passed. After considering the facts of the case the Urban Land Appellate Tribunal held that there was gross delay in filing the appeal. The prescribed period of limitation started from 30/09/1979 the date on which the final statement was issued and not from the date of order i. e. 24/02/1984 correcting the mistake. That the original order was passed with the consent of the parties and there was no justifiable reason to condone the delay. Hence the appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground of delay alone as per its order dated 12/11/1984 The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order by invoking the provisions of Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Be it noted that the petitioner knew and also understood that he held the land of Survey No 489 of Rajkot and not that of S. No. 89. The petitioner had filled in the form mentioning therein that the land held by him was that of S No. 489. The petitioner did not hold any land of S. No. 89. The petitioner in fact applied for permission under Sec. 26 of the Act for sale of the land. It was at the request of and by the consent of the petitioner that the proceedings under Sec. 6 of the Act were hastened and the final statement under Sec. 9 of the Act was passed with the consent of the petitioner In the form the petitioner described the land retainable by him. Therein the petitioner mentioned that he wanted to retain 13nd of S No. 489. However typographical error crept in the final statement in respect of land and instead of S. No. 489 it was written S. No. 89. The mistake remained as it is till the same was corrected as per order dated 24/02/1984 Meanwhile the petitioner took advantage of the order passed by the Competent Authority. He even obtained permission for sale of the land under Sec. 26 of the Act. It appears that at the stage when Notifications under Sec. 10 were issued the mistake was detected and the same was sought to be corrected. The petitioner did not even raise objections when the mistake was corrected. In this connection the Tribunal has observed as follows: