Gujarat High Court
SCA/8727/1989 of DEEPAK M MEHTA Vs COMPTENT AUTHORITY on 11 October 1995
1 Date of Decision: 11th October 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8727 of 1989 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. DIVECHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships
-#-
.FO 1
���Date of Decision: 11th October 1995
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8727 of 1989
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. DIVECHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of judgment? No
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder? No
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? No
---------------------------------------------------------------- Shri D.U. Shah, Advocate, for the Petitioners Shri M.R. Anand, Government Pleader, with Shri D.N. Patel,Assistant Government Pleader, for the Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: A.N. DIVECHA, J.
(Date: 11th October 1995)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
The order passed by the Competent Authority at Rajkot (respondent No.1 herein) on 14th March 1985 under sec. 8(4) ofthe Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act forbrief) is under challenge in this petition under Art. 226 ofthe Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondentNo.1 declared the holding of deceased Sushilaben Maganlal and one Shardaben Govindji to be in excess of the ceiling limit by9726.70 square meters.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrowcompass. The dispute centres round one parcel of land bearingSurvey No.44 admeasuring 11226.70 square meters situated atVillage Vavdi within the urban agglomeration of Rajkot (thedisputed land for convenience). It originally belonged to oneMaganlal Bhawanji Mehta. He was alive on 17th February 1976 andbreathed his last on 3rd May 1980. He was survived by his twodaughters, named, Sushilaben and Shardaben. They filed theirdeclaration in the prescribed form under sec. 6(1) of the Actthrough their Power-of-attorney-holder, named, Umeshbhai VrajlalMehta some time in 1981. It appears that the draft statementunder sec. 8 of the Act was sent some time on 29th March 1982.On behalf of the declarants, written objections thereto weresubmitted on 26th April 1982. Thereafter the matter was keptfor hearing on 11th March 1985. It appears that on that day thePower-of-attorney-holder submitted one application indicatingthat one declarant Sushilaben Maganlal Mehta breathed her laston 24th January 1983 and that fact was informed to respondentNo.1 by her son, named, Deepak Maganlal Mehta on 14th March 1983together with the death certificate of the deceased. It wasfurther mentioned therein that the Power-of-attorney-holdernever remained as such on the death of Sushilaben. Its copy isat Annexure B to this petition. Despite that application,respondent No.1 proceeded with the matter and, by his orderpassed on 14th March 1985, declared the holding to be in excessof the ceiling limit by 9726.70 square meters. Its copy is atAnnexure C to this petition. That aggrieved the presentpetitioners and they have therefore invoked the extra-ordinaryjurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitutionof India by means of this petition for questioning itscorrectness.
3. As pointed out hereinabove, the original owner, named,Maganlal Bhawanji Mehta was alive on 17th February 1976 when theAct came into force. He ought to have filed his declaration inthe prescribed form under sec. 6(1) of the Act. If he hadfiled such declaration in the prescribed form, he was entitledto only one ceiling unit of 1500 square meters and the restwould have been declared surplus under the Act. He breathed hislast on 3rd May 1980. Only thereafter petitioner No.2 and themother of petitioner No.1 filed their declaration in theprescribed form under sec. 6(1) of the Act and they claimed twoceiling units, one for each. They cannot be granted one ceilingunit each in view of the fact that the original land-holder wasalive on the date of coming into force of the Act and he wouldhave been entitled to only one ceiling unit of 1500 squaremeters. That is the view taken by respondent No.1 in hisimpugned order at Annexure C to this petition.
4. It is true that the power-of-attorney-holder of one of thedeclarants was not authorised to represent her in view of herdeath prior to the date of hearing fixed on 11th March 1985. Inthat view of the matter, the impugned order at Annexure C tothis petition cannot be sustained in law. However, no usefulpurpose will be served by upsetting it and remanding the matterto respondent No.1 for his fresh disposal according to law. Thereason therefor is quite simple. As pointed out hereinabove,the original owner swas alive on 17th February 1976 and he wouldhave been entitled to only one ceiling unit of 1500 squaremeters. That is what respondent No.1 has done in his impugnedorder at Annexure C to this petition. In exercise of mydiscretionary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitutionof India, I think it is not necessary to interfere with theimpugned order at Annexure C to this petition on this ground.
5. In the result, this petition fails. It is herebyrejected. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as tocosts. The ad-interim relief stands vacated.
--------