Gujarat High Court
SCA/2163/1995 of KP ANTANI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 11 October 1995
1 Date of Decision: 11th October 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2163 of 1995 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. 2163 of 1995
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 Y.M. Thakkar, Asst. Govt. 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 and on behalf of the State ofGujarat (respondent No.1 herein) on 12th January 1995 under sec.20(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (theAct for brief) cancelling the exemption granted under sec.20(1) of the Act with respect to one parcel of land bearingSurvey No. 462 (part) admeasuring 2 acres 25 gunthas situated in the urban agglomeration of Rajkot (the disputed land forconvenience) is under challenge in this petition under Art. 226of the Constitution of India.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrowcompass. The petitioner is the President of AnjariaCo-operative Housing Society Ltd. (the Society forconvenience). It purchased the disputed land some time on oraround 19th September 1975 by a registered sale deed. Itapplied for exemption under sec. 20(1) of the Act. By itsorder passed on 14th October 1977 by and on behalf of respondentNo.1 herein, such exemption came to be granted under sec. 20(1)of the Act on certain terms and conditions. Its copy is atAnnexure A to this petition. It may be mentioned that nocondition required the petitioner to complete the constructionof houses for its members within any stipulated time-limit. Itfurther appears that the society was slow in raisingconstruction of houses on the disputed land for its members.Thereupon the Additional Collector (ULC) at Rajkot, by hisnotice issued on 24th February 1994, directed the petitioners toshow cause why further action should not be taken as houses forits members were not constructed. Its copy is at Annexure B tothis petition. The society gave its reply thereto on 6th April1994. Its copy is at Annexure C to this petition. It has beenpointed out therein that out of 42 houses 40 houses came to beconstructed and two only remained incomplete. It appears thatthe matter came to the notice of the concerned officer ofrespondent No.1. It was noticed by him that only two plotsremained to be built upon. He found that the relevant conditionof the exemption order at Annexure A to this petition came to becontravened. A show-cause notice was thereupon issued undersec. 20(2) of the Act on 2nd April 1994 calling upon thepetitioner to show cause why action should not be taken forrevocation of the exemption. Its copy is at Annexure D to thispetition. The petitioner filed his reply its reply thereto on23rd April 1994. Its copy is at Annexure E to this petition.It appears that the matter was kept earlier for hearing and noneon behalf of the petitioner remained present. Thereupon itshearing was kept on 20th October 1994 and its intimation wasgiven to the petitioner on 4th October 1994. Its copy is atAnnexure F to this petition. It appears that the petitionercould not remain present. Thereupon by the order passed by andon behalf of respondent No.1 on 12th January 1995, the exemptionorder at Annexure A to this petition came to be revoked. A copyof the aforesaid order passed on 12th January 1995 is atAnnexure G to this petition. The petitioner has thereuponapproached this court by means of this petition under Art. 226of the Constitution of India for questioning its correctness.
3. As pointed out hereinabove, there was no conditionprescribed in the exemption order at Annexure A to this petition
as to the time-limit in which the construction of houses formembers of the society was to be completed. It was howeverexpected of the society to complete such construction withinreasonable time-limit. However, when the show-cause notice wasissued on 2nd April 1994 at Annexure D to this petition, it wasclear that, out of 42 plots, only 2 plots remainedunconstructed. It was thus clear that 40 plots out of 42 plotswere constructed. It transpires from the reply of 23rd April1994 at Annexure E to this petition that construction of those 2plots was also undertaken and it was to be completed shortly.
4. Shri Shah for the petitioner relying on para 8(5) of thepetition states that the construction is complete. In that viewof the matter, it was not necessary for respondent No.1 to passthe impugned order.
5. It may be noted that law is designed to help people andnot to harass them. On the date of the show-cause notice atAnnexure D to this petition, it was found that, out of 42 plots,40 plots were already built upon. Only two plots remained forbeing built upon. That might have been so for diverse reasonslike want of funds with members of the society to whom suchplots were allotted. There could be thousand and one reasonsfor not carrying out construction on the uncompleted plots.However, when nearly 90 per cent of the available plots wereconstructed upon, it could not have been said that there was anybreach of the conditions of the exemption order at Annexure A tothis petition more particularly when no time-limit forcompletion of construction of houses for members of the societywas prescribed.
6. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinionthat the impugned order at Annexure G to this petition cannot besustained in law. It has to be quashed and set aside.
7. In the result, this petition is accepted. The orderpassed by and on behalf of the State of Gujarat on 12th January1995 at Annexure G to this petition is quashed and set aside.Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs.
--------