PADMAKAR VYAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28-9-1991 (Annx. 4) of the Authorised Officer, Bikaner and the order dated 10-1-1994 (Annex. 5) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner by which it was held that urban land measuring 497.61 sq. m. in respect of Govindnarain and Padmakar was acquirable. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regularisation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The brief facts material for the decision of this petition may be stated as follows. Petitioner No. 1's father late Shri Govindharain Vyas and petitioner Padmakar Vyas were the cosharers in the ancestral property described in para 2 of the petition on the date of the coming into force of the Act. Petitioner No. 1 and Shri Govindnarain had, therefore, equal shares in the aforesaid properties. It may be stated that this fact was not disputed in the impugned orders. Both the above petitioners filed separate statements as required by Section 16(1) of the Act. Copies of the above statements have been annexed with the petition and are marked Annex-1 and Annex-2. Notice under Section 8(3) of the Act was issued by the Authorised Officer to petitioner No. 1 and Shri Govindnarain. The copy of the notice has been submitted with the petition and marked Annex. 3. Objections were submitted by Shri Govindnarain through his counsel Shri Bulakidas. The Authorised Officer vide his order dated 28-9-1991 estimated the total area of vacant land held by the petitioner and Shri Govindnarain as 4994.22 sq. m. and passed order for acquiring 497.61 sq. m. from each of the two cosharers after allowing 2000 sq. m. to each petitioner. The copy of the impugned order is Annex. 4. Aggrieved by the above order Shri Govindnarain and petitioner No. 1 preferred separate appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner under Section 33 of the Act which were numbered as 6/91 and 7/91 respectively. It may be stated that during the pendency of the appeal Govindnarain died on 2-8-1992 and petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were substituted as appellants in place of late Shri Govindnarain. Since the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 also have equal share in the ancestral property held by the petitioner No. 1, they have also been impleaded as petitioners in this case.

(3.) A reference regarding the material finding arrived at by the competent authority may be referred. The Authorised Officer held : (i) that the land area in property No. 1 situated at Chugaran Mohalla measuring 72-36 sq.m. was fully constructed, (ii) property at Jagman Well contained 2.55 sq.m. construction and the remaining 101.45 sq. m. was left by him as land appurtenant to the building, (iii) in relation to Chukhati Mohalla there was constructed area of 180.50 sq.m. was considered as land appurtenant thereto,(iv) in relation Rani Bazar property the construction area was 56.35 sq. m. and the remaining 170.75 sq.m. was considered as land appurtenant thereto. (v) in relation to the property as Gajner Road, Outside Jassusar Gate constructed area was 50.43 sq.m. Land measuring 500 sq.m. was allowed as land appurtenant thereto. However, while calculating the vacant land with the petitioner No. 1 late Shri Govindnarain, the Authorised Officer included the total area of land ignoring the constructed building and held as such by the above two persons. He estimated the total area of the land to be 2497.61 sq.m. and after allowing 2000 sq.m. ordered acquisition of 497.61 sq.m. as the land found surplus. The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner committed a legal serious error and dismissed the appeals and confirmed the order of the Authorised Officer dated 28-9-1981. The copy of the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner is Annex. 5.