AJITSINH CHANDRASINH GAIKWAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners had filed the statement of the holdings for the purposes of Urban Land Ceiling Act which were number as Ceiling Cases Nos. 6260, 6261, 6262, 6263, 6264, 6610 and 8248 of 1988 before the competent officer respondent No. 2. As the statements were filed by the members in their personal capacity as well as in respect of their share in coparcenary property, the consolidated order was passed in respect of these cases by the competent authority on 21.7.1988, and declared 8415 sq. mts. of land as surplus land held by the petitioners. In computing the surplus vacant land held by the petitioners, the competent officer has excluded the land occupied by Talawadi because the land was not constructable for the reason that drainage system was operating in the said area. The petitioner had also raised contentions that the lands over which construction was existing prior to the appointed date along with the land appurtenant thereto, which expressing includes so much of area as is considered necessary for beneficial use of building not exceeding 500 sq. mts. also cannot be included in computing the vacant lands held by the petitioners for the purposes of the computing surplus vacant land. This plea of the petitioners was rejected by the competent officer. The plea was rejected on the ground that constructed building over the land in question cannot be considered to be dwelling units, therefore they were not required to be excluded. However, so far as extent of construction existing on lands in question since before appointed day and land appurtenant thereto is not in dispute as stated in the order of competent officer in respect of fourteen properties.

(2.) The petitioner aggrieved with the order of the competent officer dated 27.7.1988 appealed before the ULC Tribunal challenging the order to the extent it was against them, to be specific in respect of inclusive of the constructed land and lands appurtenant thereto. However, there was no challenge to the finding about the exclusion of the land through which drainage system was operating and which were held to be not constructable. The appeal of petitioners came to be decided on 28.9.1933. The Tribunal not only rejected the appeal of the petitioners against the finding including the land over which construction was situated along with the land appurtenant thereto the building but also reversed the finding about the exclusion of the land finding which was found to be unconstructable.

(3.) Twofold contentions have been raised by the petitioner challenging the impugned orders of the Tribunal and the competent authority. Firstly it has been contended that the competent authority as well as Tribunal both have apparently erred in not excluding the land over which construction was existing even before the appointed day coupled with land under Sec. 2(q) of the Act. Section 4(9) does not cover the land on which construction was existing or commenced prior to appointed day. This issue stands concluded by decision of the Supreme Court in Meera Gupta [Smt.] vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 1567.