Gujarat High Court
SCA/805/1984 of RANIP GOPALNAGAR CO-OP HOUSINGSOCIETY ,CHIRMAN Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 19 September 1995
1 Date of Decision: 19th September 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 805 OF 1984 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: 19th September 1995
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 805 OF 1984
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 R.N. Shah, Advocate, for the Petitioner Shri S.P. Dave, Asst. Govt. Pleader, for the Respondent---------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: A.N. DIVECHA, J.
(Date: 19th September 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 of interim direction issued on 11th January1984 under sec. 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976 ('the Act' for brief) as also the show-cause noticeissued on 24th January 1984 calling upon the concernedland-owners to show cause why the permission granted by theCompetent Authority at Ahmedabad on 6th August 1982 or thereabout are under challenge in this petition under Art. 226of the Constitution of India.
2. It is not necessary to set out in detail the factsgiving rise to this petition. It appears that the petitionerpurchased a parcel of land bearing Survey No. 307/2 (part) fromvarious persons and after obtaining the necessary permissionfrom the Competent Authority at Ahmedabad by his order passed on11th November 1982 under sec. 26(2) of the Act ('the disputedland' for convenience). Copies of such orders are at Annexure Acollectively to this petition. It appears that this permissionwas granted by the Competent Authority pursuant to the orderpassed by him under sec. 8(4) thereof while processing thedeclarations filed by the concerned land-owners in theprescribed form under section 6(1) thereof. It appears that theorders under sec. 8(4) of the Act came to the notice of theconcerned officer of the Government and he appears to have foundthem not according to law. Their suo motu revision under sec.34 of the Act was therefore contemplated. Thereupon an interimdirection came to be issued on 11th January 1984 under sec. 34of the Act directing the land-owners not to change thestatus-quo of the lands in their hands including the disputedland. Its copy is at Annexure B (part) to this petition.Thereafter a show-cause notice thereunder came to be issued on24th January 1984 calling upon them to show cause why the orderpassed by the Competent Authority on 6th August 1982 presumablyunder sec. 8(4) of the Act should not be revised. A copy ofthe aforesaid show-cause notice is also at Annexure B (part) tothis petition. It appears that the interim direction issued on11th January 1984 aggrieved the petitioner and it thereforemoved this court by means of this petition under Art. 226 ofthe Constitution of India for questioning its legality andvalidity.
3. It clearly transpires from the order of interimdirection and the show-cause notice at Annexure B collectivelyto this petition that the orders at Annexure A collectively tothis petition are not under revision by or on behalf of theState Government. In that view of the matter, the purchase ofthe disputed land by the petitioner is not in jeopardy. Thepetitioner need not worry on that score. It is obvious that noaction can be taken against the petitioner with respect to thedisputed land except according to law and without giving anopportunity of hearing to it. So far as the show-cause noticeissued to the land-owners is concerned, the petitioner cannothave any say in the matter.
4. In view of my aforesaid discussion and clarification, itis not necessary to interfere with the order and the show-causenotice at Annexure B collectively to this petition moreparticularly when, by the interim order of this court, the petitioner has been permitted to construct a society which hasalready been constructed and houses have come to be allotted toits members as stated by Shri Shah for the petitioner before me.
5. In the result, this petition fails. It is thereforerejected. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as tocosts.
--------