Gujarat High Court
SCA/592/1984 of SHSHI SABAR APRTMENT Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 18 September 1995
1 Date of Decision: 18th September 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 592 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: 18th September 1995
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 592 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: 18th 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 show-cause notice issued by and on behalf of theState of Gujarat (the respondent herein) on 16th September 1983under sec. 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1976 ('the Act' for brief) is under challenge in this petitionunder Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to this petition. It may be sufficient to note thatthe petitioner applied for permission for sale of two parcels ofland under sec. 27 of the Act. By his order passed on 30thSeptember 1981, the Competent Authority at Ahmedabad granted thenecessary permission on certain terms and conditions. Its copyis at Annexure A to this petition. It may be mentioned that thelands were sold to a co-operative society and it was dulyregistered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.A copy of its registration certificate is at Annexure B to thispetition. It appears that the order at Annexure A to thispetition came to the notice of the concerned officer of therespondent. He appears to have found it not according to law.Its suo motu revision was therefore contemplated. Thereupon aprohibitory order under sec. 34 of the Act came to be issued on20th April 1983. Its copy is at Annexure C to this petition.Thereafter a show-cause notice came to be issued on 16thSeptember 1983 under sec. 34 of the Act calling upon thepetitioner to show cause why the order at Annexure A to thispetition should not be revised. A copy of the aforesaidshow-cause notice is at Annexure D to this petition. Theaggrieved petitioner has thereupon approached this court bymeans of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for questioning its correctness.
3. A petition challenging the show-cause notice isconsidered to be premature as no final decision is taken. ShriShah for the petitioner has urged that the society has come intoexistence and members have occupied the houses allotted to them.It will however be open to the petitioners to bring to thenotice of the respondent all these facts regarding the presentstate of the land in question. It would be open to thepetitioner to raise all the contentions raised by it in thispetition in response to the show-cause notice at Annexure D tothis petition. This court however will be disinclined tointerfere with the proceeding initiated by the show-cause noticeat Annexure D to this petition at this stage.
4. In the result, this petition fails. It is hereby rejected. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as tocosts.
-------