VANDANA MOHAN GUNJAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein are wife and husband respectively. The return was filed by the petitioners under section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, "act of 1976") before the Additional Collector and Competent Authority. In the return, the petitioners showed that they were owners of plot Nos. 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 41 and 42 out of Survey Nos. 968/969, Bhamburda, Shivajinagar, Pune but mentioned that plot Nos. 25, 26, 27, 41 and 42 were leased out to one Mr. Prabhakar Purshottam Joshi on 23-1-1975 by way of registered lease deed and as such they were holding the land comprising of plot Nos. 34 and 35 only. The competent authority, Pune initially issued a draft statement on 12-1-1985 under section 8 (3) of the Act of 1976 declaring therein that the petitioners hold vacant land admeasuring 1532. 40 sq. mts. and since they are entitled to retain 1000 sq. mts. of the vacant land, remaining land of 532. 40 sq. mts. was liable to be surrendered. The petitioners filed written objections to the draft statement. Thereafter the competent authority on 16-1-1985 after taking into consideration petitioners objections to draft statement issued final statement thereby declaring that petitioners were holding only 26 sq. mts. in excess out of vacant land comprising of plot Nos. 34 and 35. It may be noted here that the petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 2007 of 1980 against Prabhakar Purshottam Joshi in the year 1980 for possession of the demised lands being plot Nos. 25, 26, 27, 41 and 42. The petitioners suit was decreed in the year 1985. The lessee Prabhakar Purshottam Joshi was directed to hand over possession of demised land to the petitioners. The lessee preferred appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Court and thereafter in the month of October 1986, the petitioners acquired possession of plot Nos. 25, 26, 27, 41 and 42 from the lessee. Upon acquisition of the aforesaid land from the lessee, the petitioners on 11-4-1987 made application under section 15 before the competent authority. The competent authority passed an order on 19-7-1988 purporting to be under section 8 (4) of the Act of 1976 declaring that the petitioners are entitled to retain 1000 sq. mts. of land out of freshly acquired land. The competent authority held that the remaining land of 535. 40 sq. mts. of the acquired land was surplus.

(2.) TO complete the narration of facts it may be noted here that after the decree for possession of the land was passed in favour of the petitioners in the suit filed against the lessee, the petitioners on 27-3-1986 issued notice under section 26 of the Act of 1976 for sale of 1000 sq. mts. of the land comprising of plots 34 and 34 which was already in possession of the petitioners and the petitioners executed two sale deeds in favour of one Sunil R. Karwandikar on 28-7-1986. The State Government in exercise of its power under section 34 of the Act of 1976, issued notice to the petitioners on 16-10-1990 to show cause why the order dated 19-7-1988 be not set aside and revised. By order dated 7-9-1991 the State Government took into account the position that the competent authority ought to have taken into consideration the extent of land admeasuring 1000 sq. mts. permitted to be retained by the petitioners within the ceiling limit as per the order dated 16-1-1985 which was sold by the petitioners after getting permission under section 26 of the Act and, accordingly, remanded the matter back to the competent authority for fresh determination in accordance with law. This order passed by the State Government on 7-9-1991 is impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) MR. S. V. Pitre, learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that after giving notice under section 26 of the Act of 1976 the petitioners sold plot Nos. 34 and 35 which was allowed to be retained by the petitioners by the competent authority as per final statement issued on 16-1-1985. Once the land comprising of plot Nos. 34 and 35 was sold by the petitioners after following the procedure prescribed under section 26, the competent authority was justified in excluding the said land while determining the holding afresh after acquisition of land by the petitioners pursuant to the decree passed by Civil Court in the suit filed against lessee and thus there was no justifiable reason for the State Government to exercise its suo motu revisional power against the order dated 12-1-1988 passed by the competent authority.