Gujarat High Court
SCA/11569/1994 of JAGDISHBHAI L PUROHIT Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 18 October 1995
1 Date of Decision: 18th October 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11569 of 1994 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. DIVECHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish
-#-
.FO 1
���Date of Decision: 18th October 1995
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11569 of 1994
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. DIVECHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of judgment?
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?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
---------------------------------------------------------------- Shri P.M. Bhatt, Advocate, for the Petitioner Shri S.P. Dave, Asst. Govt. Pleader, for the Respondents---------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: A.N. DIVECHA, J.
(Date: 18th 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 bythe Collector of Vadodara (respondentNo. 2 herein) on 16th September 1994 is under challenge in thispetition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. By hisimpugned order, respondent No. 2 did not entertain thepetitioner's application for non-agricultural use of one parcelof landbearing Survey No. 79 admeasuring 5291 square meterssituated at Gotri within the urban agglomeration of Vadodara.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition move ina narrowcompass. The petitioner filed his declaration inthe prescribedform under sec. 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) with respect to his holding withinthe urbanb agglomeration of Vadodara. His total holding wasfound tobe tothe tune of 14599 square meters. The declarationwas processed by the Competent Authority at Vaodara. By hisorder passed on 28thJanuary 1986 under sec. 8(4) of the Act,the Competent Authority declared the holding of the petitionerto be inexcess of the ceiling limit by 11599 square meters. Theaggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before theUrban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad. It came to be registered asAppeal No. 51 of 1986. By the order passed by the Urban LandTribunal on 8th November 1993 in the aforesaid appeal, the UrbanLand Tribunal accepted the appeal in part and declared theholding of the petitioner tobe in excess of the ceiling limit by5599 square meters. Its copy is at Annexure A to this petition.It may be mentioned that the petitioner was permitted therunderto retain in all 6000 square meters of land including twoparcels of land bearing Survey No. 79 and 920 admeasuring 5291square meters and 709 square meters respectively situated atGotri within the urban agglomerationof Vadodara. The presentdispute centres round SurveyNo. 79 thereof (the disputed landfor convenience). The petitioner thereafer applied on 5thFebruary 1994 for permission to use the disputed land fornon-agricultural purposes. It appears that respondent No.2received one communication from theState Government indicatingthat the original order passed bythe Competent Authority atVadodara was required to bereviewed and its revision was incontemplation under sec. 34 of the Act. Thereupon, byhis orderpassed on 16th September 1994, respondent No.2 did notoentertain the petitioner's aforesaid application for what ispopularly known as the N.A. permission with respect to thedisputed land. A copy of the aforesaid order passed byrespondent No.2 on 16th September 1994 is at Annexure D to thispetitin. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon approached thiscourt by means of this petition under Art. 226 of theConstitution of India for questioning its correctness.
3. It becomes clear from the impugned order at Annexure Dto this petition that the petitioner's application for N.A.permission with respect to the disputed land was not decided onmerits. Infact, it was not entertained onthe basis of someconfidential communication. I think the ground given for notentertaining such application isnot germane to me. LearnedAssistant Government Pleader Shri Dave for the respondentsisunable to inform me as to whether or not any show-cause noticeis issued for reviewing the order passed by the CompetentAuthority. ShriBhatt for the petitioner states that thepetitioner has not received anysuch show-cause notice so far.
It therefore becomes clear that no review of the order passed bythe Competent Authority at Vadodara was in contemplation orthat, if it was not in contemplation, no further action thereonhas been taken.
4. Even if such review was in contemplation, if at all thepetitioner's application for N.A. permission with respect tothe disputed land was required to be granted, it could have beengranted oncertain terms and conditions including theconditionthat the N.A. permissionwas liable tobe cancelled incase the order passed by the Competent Authority at Vadodara wasreviewed under sec. 34 of the Act.
5. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinionthat the impugned order at Annexure D to this petition cannot besustainedin