BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHELTER, shelter, shelter is the cry of the dwellers of the cities. To provide land for the shelter to the millions of down-trodden people living in the cities on the pavement or beneath the trees, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976, was enacted. The intention of the Legislation was to prevent the construction on the urban land which is in the hands of few persons and to put check on speculation and profiteering.

(2.) UNDER S. 6 (1) of the Act, it was obligatory on the person holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limit at the time of commencement of the Act to file return. UNDER S. 6 (2) of the Act, a notice was issued to the present petition by the competent authority, on 30th June, 1976, as the petitioner failed to file the return. The competent Authority, prepared the draft statement and after examination, it was found that the petitioner held 1,490. 52 Sq. mets. of land at Jaipur, and 590. 44. Sq. Mets. of land at Bikaner. Thus, the petitioner held 2,080 Sq. mets, of land in all. The petitioner under the law was entitled to hold only upto 1,500 Sq. mets. of land. Thus, he was having 580. 96 Sq. mets. of land in excess of the ceiling limit.

(3.) THIS writ petition has been filed after 5 years of the passing of the order (Annexure-2 ). It will not be out of place here to mention that in fact, the petitioner admitted the validity and the legality of the order (Annexure-2) by implications. Vide order (Annexure-2) the surplus land was declared. The petitioner moved an application for the grant of exemption under Section 20 (I) (b) of the Act. When the application for the grant of exemption was rejected, he has tried to challenge the original order passed in the year 1982 after five years. The delay of 5 years is fatal and the petitioner cannot claim any relief for that part of relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly not argued about the vali dity of (Annexure-2) though prayed in the writ petition. Apart from that we have examined the validity and we are satisfied that there is no infirmity in the said order (Annexure-2) which was passed in August, 1982.