(1.) Rule. With the consent of the parties, returnable forthwith.
(2.) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India, challenging the order dated 5th June, 2006, passed by the Principal Secretary (1) , Town Planning Department bearing No. Writ 1204/p. C. 256/ulch-2. This is a revision filed under section 34 by the petitioner to amend the order passed under section 8 (4) of the Urban Land (Ceil-ing and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the ULC act"). The claim made by the petitioner was that when the order under section 8 (4) of the said Act was passed declaring 1,93,529 square meter area as a surplus, out of the said area, 83,964 area has been taken by the Government without payment of any compensation. According to the petitioner on the appointed date there were two sisters in the family viz. Suman Kulkarni and Bharti prabhakar Dixit who were major at that time and were entitled to get units according to the provisions of the said Act. However, that benefit was not given when the order was passed. At a subsequent stage the representation being No. 7241/2004 was made to the secretary, Urban Land Ceiling Department. That representation was not considered. This court, by the order dated 8th December, 2004, on concession given by both side Counsel, directed that the representation shall be treated as a Revision Application and the concerned authority shall afford a fair opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No. 4 (in that petition) and decide the same strictly on its own merit and in accordance with law on or before 20th February, 2005, and, therefore, the impugned order was passed by the respondent. However, instead of deciding the matter on merit, the matter has been disposed of on a technical ground viz. that the said application has not been preferred within a reasonable period under section 34 of the said Act and reasonable period, according to the authority, is a period of three years from the declaration under section 8 (4) of the said act and thus, the Revision was rejected.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim of the daughters was required to be considered in view of the supreme Court judgment and the Government circulars dated 23rd July, 1997 and 10th May, 1999. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the objection in respect of the limitation by invoking provisions of section 34 cannot be raised by the respondent because in similar cases of other land holders, such objection was not raised and the corrections in the declaration under section 8 (4) were carried out by the Government and, therefore, it is submitted that the government cannot discriminate between the two land holders whose cases are being considered under the ULC Act, 1976.