VIJAYA BANK AHMEDABAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Vijaya Bank claimed that it had interest as mortgages in the land bearing Survey No. 189 of Rajkot admeasuring 4 acres and 18 guathas belonging to M/s. Narotamdas Dharamshi Maniar. The land-holdars had filled in necessary form as required under the provisions of sub-sec- (1) sec. 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 in the proceedings before the Competent Authority. After necessary inquiry the Competent Authority held against the land-holder and served a statement under sec. 9 of the Act upon him on 23/11/1983 Thereafter a notification under sec. 10 of the Act was issued. At this stage the Bank preferred its claim before the Component Authority. The Competent Authority as per its order dated 27/11/1984 held that the claim preferred by the Bank was without substance inasmuch as the Bank was never permitted by the authorities to make finance to the firm of M/s. Narotamdas Dharamshi Maniar for any other purpose except agriculture. The petitioner felt aggrieved by this order and hence preferred an appeal under sec. 33 of the Act. The Appellate Authority returned the appeal memo on the ground that since the original order passed by the Competent Authority was not appealed against the appeal was not maintainable. This order is challenged by the petitioner herein.

(2.) Section 10 of the Act provides for acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit. Under sec. 10(1) the Competent Authority is required to issue a notification giving particulars of the vacant land held by the respective person in excess of the ceiling limit. The Competent Authority is also required to state that such vacant land is required to be acquired by the Government and the claims of all persons inserted 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. The notification contained the aforesaid details as required to be published in the official Gazette of the State Government. Thereafter if any claims are made they are required to be considered as provided for under the provisions of sec 10(2) of the Act. Section 10(2) of the Act reads as follows:

(3.) Section 33 of the Act provides for appeal against the order made by the Competent Authority under the Act. All orders passed by the Competent Authority except the orders passed under sec. 11 and orders under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 30 are made appealable under the provisions of sec. 33 of the Act. In the instant case as seen hereinabove the order sought to be appealed against by the petitioner-Bank is an order passed by the Competent Authority under the provisions of sec. 10(2) of the Act. This is an appealable order. Even so the appellate authority has declined to entertain the appeal on the ground that the petitioner- Bank had not preferred an appeal against the original order meaning thereby against the finding the it the original land-owner is holding the land in excess of the ceiling limit. This is an obvious error. Persons like the petitioner-Bank could never have preferred appeal against the order passed under sec. 9. Persons life the petitioner-Bank have to prefer their claim only after the proceedings have reached the stage of sec. 10(1) of the Act. Such persons are supposed to prefer their claim only after issuance of notification under sec. 10(1) of the Act. Therefore by the very nature of the scheme of the Act such persons like the petitioner-Bank who claim interest in the land sought to be acquired by the State and so declared under the provisions of sec.10(1) of the Act could have preferred appeal against the original other.