MAHADEVI MALLIKARJUN BOLKAVATHE Vs. COLLECTOR OF SHOLAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the facts involved are not in dispute, the only question which requires consideration is whether reservation of urban land in the -onal Plan and not in Master Plan is sufficient for consideration thereof as part of the vacant and as defined in Section 2 (q) of the Urben Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (for short, the Act ).

(2.) THE Original Petitioner owned and possessed four pieces of land, two of which were non-agricultural and the remaining two were agricultural land. The Original Petitioner filed a Statement under Section 6 (1) of the Act before the Competent Authority, Sholapur Urban Agglomeration, Sholapur in respect of his holdings. After receipt of the said Statement, the 2nd Respondent prepared a draft Statement under Section 8 (3) of the Act and called upon the Original Petitioner to file his objection thereto. The Original Petitioner submitted his objections to the draft Statement and inter alia contended that the draft Statement prepared by the 2nd Respondent was not admitted as correct. The Original Petitioner also contended that he was cultivating and taking crops in two pieces of land bearing Survey Nos. 152/2 and 192 and as such, the same were to be exempted while calculating the vacant land held by the Original Petitioner. Despite the objections of the Original Petitioner, the 2nd Respondent confirmed the draft Statement prepared by him.

(3.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Final Statement prepared under Section 8 (4) of the said Act and the Order dated 7th February, 1980 passed by the Competent Authority, the Original Petitioner preferred an Appeal to the Collector, Sholapur being ULC Appeal No. 12 of 1980. The Appellate Authority by its judgment and order dated 20th May, 1981 dismissed the said Appeal and confirmed the Final Statement prepared by the Competent Authority. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Original Petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Since, during the pendency of this Petition, the Original Petitioner has died, his heirs have been brought on record who are prosecuting the Petition.