Gujarat High Court
SCA/2746/1984 of AMRATLAL VRINDAVANDAS SHAH Vs STATE OF GUJARAT SECRETARY (REVENUE DEPTT) on 18 September 1995
1 Date of Decision: 18th September 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2746 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. 2746 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 A.S. Vakil, Advocate, for Shri S.B. Vakil, Advocate, forthe Petitioners Shri Y.M. Thakkar, Asst. Govt. Pleader, for Respondent No.1
Shri Prashant G. Desai, Advocate, for Shri G.N. Desai, Advocate,for Respondent No. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 prohibitory order passed by and on behalf of theState of Gujarat (Respondent No.1 herein) on 23rd November 1983under sec. 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the Act' for brief) as also the show-cause notice issuedon 21st December 1983 thereunder for revising the order passedby the Competent Authority at Ahmedabad on 28th June 1982 asfinalised by his order of 20th October 1982 are under challengein this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.By the order of 23rd November 1983, the petitioners weredirected to maintain status-quo with respect to the lands inquestion in their possession on the date of the order.
2. It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to this petition. It might be sufficient to saythat the petitioners filed their separate declarations in theprescribed forms under sec. 6(1) of the Act with respect totheir holdings within the urban agglomeration of Ahmedabad.Since the subject-matters of all the forms were common, theywere processed together. So far as the form filed by MalharHousing Corporation was concerned, the Competent Authority foundits holding not to be beyond the ceiling limit. The necessaryorder was passed by him on 28th June 1982. Its copy is atAnnexure C to this petition. So far as the petitioners areconcerned, the Competent Authority came to the conclusion thatpetitioner No.2 herein was holding excess land beyond theceiling limit by 1430 sq.meters. Its copy is at Annexure D tothis petition. It appears that both these orders came to thenotice of the concerned officer of the State Government. Hefound them to be not according to law. Their suo motu revisionwas therefore contemplated. With a view to preservingstatus-quo with respect to the subject-matters of the aforesaidorders, an order was issued on 23rd November 1983 in purportedexercise of power under sec. 34 of the Act directing theparties to maintain status-quo with respect to the lands inquestion. Its copy is at Annexure B to this petition.Thereafter one show-cause notice was issued on 21st December1983 under sec. 34 of the Act calling upon the petitioners toshow cause why the orders at Annexures C and D to this petitionshould not be revised. A copy of the aforesaid show-causenotice is at Annexure A to this petition. The aggrievedpetitioners have thereupon approached this court by means ofthis petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India forquestioning the correctness of the order at Annexure B to thispetition as also the validity of the show-cause notice atAnnexure A to this petition.
3. So far as the prohibitory order at Annexure B to thispetition is concerned, it has preceded the show-cause notice.The Division Bench of this court in its ruling in the case ofVasantlal Chhotalal Khandwala v. The State of Gujarat andOthers reported in AIR 1994 Gujarat 26 has held that theprohibitory order under sec. 34 of the Act cannot precede anyshow-cause notice issued thereunder. In that view of thematter, the prohibitory order at Annexure B to this petition
4. So far as the challenge to the show-cause notice atAnnexure A to this petition is concerned, this court usuallydoes not entertain any challenge at that stage. This petitionqua the show-cause notice at Annexure A to this petition can besaid to be premature as no final decision is taken. Thepetitioners should reply to the show-cause notice at Annexure Ato this petition to enable the concerned officer to take hisappropriate decision in the matter. It would be open to thepetitioners to take up all the contentions which are taken up inthis petition.
5. In the result, this petition is partly accepted. Theorder passed by and on behalf of the State Government on 23rdNovember 1983 at Annexure B to this petition is quashed and setaside. So far as the show-cause notice issued on 21st December1983 at Annexure A to this petition is concerned, thepetitioners shall file their reply thereto and take up allpossible contentions and the State Government will consider thecase on its own merits. Since the matter is very old, the StateGovernment may decide the case as expeditiously as possible.Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent withno order as to costs.