PUJAJI DHULAJI THAKOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a bolder of vacant land situated within the urban agglomeration area of Ahmedabad. The petitioner s application under Sec. 20 for exemption from operation of certain provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 has been rejected as per order dated 21/08/1986 Annexure-B to the petition. The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of this order. The petitioner holds land of Survey No. 458 of village Vejalpur which admeasures 15730 sq. yds. On 26/05/1976 the petitioner applied for exemption in respect of 10000 sq. yds. of land. It appears that the application was submitted because the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell the land to New Jalaram Co-operative Housing Society. (This society is petitioner No. 1 in Special Civil Application No. 5597 of 1986. Therein the order passed by the Competent Authority under Sec. 9 of the Act is challenged inter alia on he ground that no notice as required under Rule 5 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Rules 1916 is served upon the Society. That petition is being disposed of by a separate judgment). The Government partially granted the application as per order dated 10/01/1979 (Annexure-A to the petition). Thereafter the aforesaid Co-operative Housing Society submitted another application for exemption under Sec. 20 of the Act. That application was rejected by the Government on 15/01/1985. Thereafter the petitioner again applied on 13/07/1986 and prayed that exemption from operation of certain provisions of the Act be granted in respect of 6003 sq. yds. of land. This application has been rejected as per order dated August 21 1986 copy of which is produced at Annexure-B to the petition. This order is challenged by way of this petition.

(2.) The petitioner submits that the society was registered on 26/05/1976 and the application for registration was submitted even before the Act come into force. There was delay on the part of the Government authorities for registering the society. Had the society been registered earlier the document of sale would have been executed even before the Act came into force. Therefore on account of delay on the part of the Government authorities the land-holder should not suffer. It is further submitted that when the application for registration was made it was mentioned that there were in all 30 members enrolled by the society but as per the Rules and Regulations of the Co-operative Society fees of only 10 members were accepted and therefore the names of 10 members were only shown initially. But as a matter of fact in the application for registration names of 30 members have been mentioned. Therefore the application should have been granted by considering that initially there were 30 members. The earlier application has been decided on 10/01/1979 on the basis that there were only 10 members.

(3.) Be it noted that when the application dated 10/01/1979 was decided both the aspects narrated herein above were very much present before the authority exercising powers under Sec. 20 of the Act. The order dated 10/01/1979 passed by the Government has not been challenged either by the land holder or by the society. Therefore that order has become final. By that order the Government thought it fit to grant the application only partially. Exemption sought for was in respect of 10 0 sq. yds. of land. The Government thought it fit to grant exemption in respect of 4000 sq. yds. of land only. The order passed by the Government dated 10/01/1979 has become final. It has not been challenged before any authority whatsoever. This being the position fresh challenge by resorting to review application is not maintainable. If that is done it would amount to reversing and or modifying the order dated 10/01/1979 which has become final. This would amount to circumventing the provisions of law. The order dated 10/01/1979 is not revisable. The order has been acquiesced into by the parties. The parties have taken advantage under the order i.e. 4000 sq. yds. of land which has been exempted from operation of the provisions of the Act has been utilised by the parties for the purpose for which it has been exempted. If this order is permitted to be challenged on the grounds which were very much available to the land-holder at the time of consideration of application it would amount to reopening the entire application. It is doubtful that such an order can be reopened even if there be any fresh material. If such a course is permitted it would amount to circumventing the provisions of law and such a course cannot be permitted to be taken in a petition under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India.