GULAB KRISHNARAO GUNJAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. None for the petitioner. Mr.Gokhale, Assistant Government Pleader, appears for the Respondents. The petition came to be filed by the petitioner land owner challenging the order dated 11.7.1996 passed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra u/s 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act declaring an area of 2267 sq.mtrs. as surplus and further declaring plot No.40 as surplus land. The petitioner also challenged the consequential order which came to be passed on 7.8.1996 by the competent authority. It is the case of the petitioner that he has filed a declaration in respect of plot Nos.36 to 40 and 48 and 49. Therefore he pointed out that plot Nos.48 and 49 were leased out by registered lease deed for which he had obtained permission u/s 4(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act and constructed a building forming a cooperative housing society. Plot Nos.36 and 38 were leased out to one A.V. Apate whereas plot No.40 was gifted to Rohini Gunjal, who was a minor, by her uncle. Plot Nos.38 and 39 belong to minor and the said plot was sold to Vallabh co-operative housing society limited. On considering the return filed by the petitioner on 8.8.1992 the competent authority declared that the petitioner held surplus lands to the extent of 2098.67 sq.mtrs. and request of the petitioner to allow him admissible retainable land from plot No.40 and remaining land from plot No.39 was accepted. It appears that one of the members of the cooperative housing society Mr.Dabir preferred a revision application u/s 34 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act for setting aside the order dated 8.8.1994 which was allowed by the Chief Secretary by his order dated 11.6.1996 and it was declared that plot No.40 is a surplus land. It is upon this order that the competent authority passed the impugned order.

(2.) It is contended by the petitioner land owner that the Chief Secretary has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in him u/s 34 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and that he had otherwise no power to review the earlier order passed on 8.8.1994. That the Chief Secretary having committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of record by holding that plot No.40 should be treated as surplus land, it has led to an additional land being declared as surplus and, therefore, it has prejudiced the petitioner, the holder of the land, in giving his choice for selecting the land which he desires to surrender.

(3.) On the other hand, it is the case of the Respondent State that the petitioner was holding land bearing plot Nos.48, 49, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 in the final plot No.395 plus 396, Shivaji Nagar, Pune and that while examining his case, the competent authority duly took into consideration the area admeasuring 570.20 sq.mtrs. of plot No.48 on the ground that permission for constructing building was granted to the petitioner under the provisions of section 4(3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act on 24.5.1978 and that is how the said area came to be excluded while computing the surplus land and accordingly, a declaration u/s 8(4) of the said Act was notified and the petitioner was allowed to retain one unit of 1000 sq.mtrs and 2098.57 sq.mtrs was declared as surplus. It is after the land came to be declared as surplus and the petitioner was permitted to retain the land to the extent of 1000 sq.mtrs and called upon to exercise his choice, the petitioner gave choice of land admeasuring 535.30 sq.mtrs and 464.70 sq.mtrs of plot No.40 and 39 (part) respectively and, therefore, the competent authority was justified in declaring 2098.57 sq.mtrs as surplus land out of plot Nos.39 (part), 49, 36, 37 and 38. It is contended by the respondent that at the behest of Mr.Dabir that an application was moved in the matter to the Government on 31.10.1996 who sought reexamination of the case by calling for examining the record and order passed by the competent authority in respect of the case of the petitioner as to how the State government invoked the provisions of section 34 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and passed the impugned order. It is contended by the respondent that the competent authority rather did not take into consideration the surplus land out of plot No.48 and, therefore, the Government was justified in declaring it to be so and as a consequence of which the competent authority modified its order which is the subject matter of the present petition. It is, therefore, submitted that the order of the competent authority in respect of the retainable land within the ceiling limit is proper.