RAJESH AHUJA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of demand dated 26th October, 1983 (Ex.8) and the order dated 4th February, 1982 (Ex.5) where by the competent authority under the Rajasthan Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (here in after referred to as the Act of 1976) has acquired the excess land held by the petitioners.

(2.) THERE is land situtated in the Jodhpur at Gorau House, Near Air Force. One Ram Swaroop executed will on 16th August, 1974 in favour of the petitioners in respect of immoveable properties owned and possessed by him. On 9th October, 1976 Ram Swaroop filed return -as required under Section 6 (1) of the Act of 1976 before the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 conducted a survey and the surveyor submitted his report on 17th October, 1979 before the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 prepared the draft statement as required under Section 8 of the Act of 1976. There after notice under was served on the petitioners and a detailed reply was submitted on behalf of the petitioners. Various objections were raised in the reply. The respondent No.2 after hearing both the parties declared the open land measuring 3972.00 sq. yds. situated at Jodhpur Gorau House being excess vacant land of the prescribed limit and therefore same may be acquired. Thereafter a notice Ex. 6 was issued by the Government in exercise of its power under Section 34 of the Act of 1976 for revising the order dated 4th February, 1982 passed by the Competent Authority, Jodhpur. The petitioners filed reply to this notice Ex. 7. There after the State of Rajasthan vide Ex. 8 set aside the order of the competent authority and remanded the case back to the competent authority to determine the same in the light of the order Ex.8. Aggrieved against this order the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) NEXT the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the power has been conferred on the Government and same has been exercised by the Deputy Secretary to the Government therefore such exercise of the power is bad. This submission is also without any basis. The power has been conferred on the Government and the same has been exercised by the Government, which is clear from the order, this has been exercised by the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Finance Department. Under the Rules of Business such power can be delegated and same has been delegated in the Finance Department and the Deputy Secretary of the Government as delegatee of the Government has exercised this, therefore no exception can be taken to this.