Gujarat High Court
SCA/4429/1990 of DHIRAJLAL PRABHUDAS & CO, Vs COMPETENT AUTHORITY on 11 October 1995
1 Date of Decision: 11th October 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4429 of 1990 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. 4429 of 1990
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 Petitioner Shri M.R. Anand, Government Pleader, with Shri D.N. Patel,Asst. 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 29th October 1986 under sec. 8(4)of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 as affirmedin appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal atAhmedabad (respondent No.2 herein) on 21st November 1989 in Appeal No. Rajkot-25 of 1987 is under challenge in thispetition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. By hisimpugned order, respondent No.1 declared the holding of thepetitioner to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 1806.54square meters.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in narrowcompass. The petitioner as a partnership firm filed itsdeclaration in the prescribed form under sec. 6(1) of the Actwith respect to its holding within the urban agglomeration ofRajkot. It was duly processed by respondent No.1 and, by hisorder passed on 29th October 1986 under sec. 8(4) of the Act,respondent No.1 declared the holding of the petitioner to be inexcess of the ceiling limit by 1806,54 square meters. Its copyis at Annexure C to this petition. The aggrieved petitionercarried the matter in appeal before respondent No.2 under sec.33of the Act. A copy of the memo of appeal is at Annexure D tothis petition. It came to be registered as Appeal No.Rajkot-25 of 1987. By the order passed on 21st November 1989 inthe aforesaid appeal, respondent No.2 rejected it. Its copy isat Annexure E to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner hasthereupon approached this court by means of this petition underArt. 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning thecorrectness of the order at Annexure C to this petition asaffirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure E to thispetition.
3. The main submission urged by learned Advocate Shri Shahfor the petitioner is based on the Ribbon Development Rules.Both the authorities below have given a concurrent finding thatthe road in question was formerly known as Rajkot-Morvi Road butat the relevant time it was reduced to an approach road runningbetween Lakhajiraj station and Rajkot-Morvi Road. In that viewof the matter, the building line and the control line applicableto the state high way was not found applicable to the land inquestion. This is a finding of fact and it is not found orshown to be perverse in any manner. I am therefore of theopinion that the authorities below have rightly not excluded theportion of the land on the basis of the Ribbon Development Rulesfrom the holding of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner is obviously a partnership firm and itwill answer the definition of "person" contained in sec. 2(i)of the Act. In that view of the matter, both the authoritiesbelow were justified in not granting any separate unit topartners of the petitioner firm.
5. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinionthat the impugned order at Annexure C to this petition asaffirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure E to this
petition calls for no interference by this court in thispetition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. In the result, this petition fails. It is herebyrejected. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as tocosts. The ad-interim relief stands vacated.
-------