SHAKRIBEN SOMAJI THAKORE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Communication Annexure 'C' dated 2-8-1996 sent by Competent Authority to the petitioners refusing to grant permission for sale under S.26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is challenged by invoking writ jurisdiction.

(2.) A few relevant facts giving rise to this petition are stated as under : The petitioners were the tenants of land bearing Survey No. 75/2 corresponding to F.P. No. 177 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 90. Subsequently, by friction of law the petitioners were declared as deemed purchasers and thus became owner of the land. All the petitioners agreed to sell their respective sub-plots to the petitioner No. 25, a Co-operative Housing Society. The petitioners entered into separate sale deeds and the same were presented on 1-6-1996 for registration in the office of Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad (Memnagar). Thereafter on 6-6-1996 the petitioners served notice under S.26(1) of the Act informing respondent No. 2 about the intended sale to enable to exercise option. The respondent No. 2 instead of exercising option to purchase, sent this communication Annexure 'C' dated 2-6-1996 refusing to grant permission for sale. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have filed this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Before I discuss on merits, I may state that in between some more developments like filing of appeal, partition and sub-division into plots amongst petitioners, etc., had taken place but these facts not being relevant for this petition, are not referred in detail. Similarly, while deciding form under S.6 of the Act, no surplus land has been declared and that the holding of individual petitioner is held to be within the ceiling limit. The controversy raises a very short question about scope of S.26 and powers of competent authority. The question would be that upon receipt of an intimation under S.26(1) from the land-holder about intended transfer (may be sale, gift, mortgage or in any mode), the competent authority is required to exercise option only or is also empowered to refuse to grant sanction for such transfer ?