NATHALAL BHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred challenging the action of respondent competent authority as confirmed by the Urban Land Tribunal under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act ).

(2.) THE facts which are not in dispute are that one deceased Vishnuprasad Nathalal Bhatt filed Form No. 1 as required under the provisions of Section 6 (1) of the Act on 13. 08. 1976. Though the said statement was relatable to 12 different properties, the dispute for the present is only in relation to land bearing Survey No. 692/1, admeasuring 6880 sq. mtrs. of Naroda Taluka City District Ahmedabad. The competent authority forwarded draft statement with notice under Section 8 (3) of the Act to deceased Vishnuprasad Nathalal Bhatt and objections thereof were filed on 03. 12. 1992. After hearing the said gentleman, the competent authority made an order under Section 8 (4) of the Act on 27. 01. 1988 declaring the land admeasuring 6649 sq. mtrs. of land as excess vacant land. Subsequently the competent authority followed this up by issuing final statement under Section 9 of the Act on 06. 02. 1988, notification under Section 10 (1) of the Act on 29. 02. 1988 and the same was published in the gazette on 28. 04. 1988.

(3.) THE petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the Urban Land Tribunal (the Tribunal) being Appeal No. 164 of 1988. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 25. 04. 1990. It is at this stage that the petitioners have approached this Court raising following three questions: whether the authorities below are right in not considering the property bearing Survey No. 692/1, admeasuring 692/1, admeasuring 6880 sq. mtrs. of Naroda, Taluka City, District Ahmedabad as ancestral property ? whether the authorities below are right in law in including the properties bearing Survey Nos. 1137, 1137/2, 1137/1, 1116/b, 1140 and 1140/b of village Naroda, Taluka City, District Ahmedabad which were constructed long before 1976 in the holdings of the petitioners? whether the authorities below committed an error in ignoring the documentary evidence on record which clearly proved the nature of the holding of the properties in the hands of deceased Vishnuprasad as ancestral properties and not as his self-acquired properties ?