IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10763 of 1998 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ================================================================
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 the 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 ?
================================================================ KANUBHAI MANEKLAL PATEL Petitioner(s) Versus COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR ULC & 1 Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MR SURESH M SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 18/12/2012 ORAL ORDER Mr.Suresh M.Shah is not present in the second round. Hence, dismissed for default.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) Date : 19/12/2012 ORAL JUDGEMENT
1. Before the order is signed, Mr.Mehul Shah prayed for restoration and he undertakes to proceed with the matter. Hence, restored. The matter is further heard on merits.
2. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner for challenging legality and validity of the order passed by the Competent Authority and its confirmation thereof by the Tribunal dated 24.08.1998, whereby the land in question was declared as surplus land under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976. This Court on 13.09.2011 had passed the following order:
“On 25.10.2010, following order was passed by this Court : “With a view to enable Mr. Raval, learned AGP to file reply, as a last chance, S.O. To 22.11.2010.”
2. Inspite of that, no affidavitinreply is filed. As a last chance, matter is adjourned to 17.10.2011. Learned Assistant Government Pleader is directed to file affidavitinreply within a period of four weeks failing which the respondent No.1 will be held liable for any loss to the State Government.
3. A writ of this order may be served on respondent No.1.”
3. As per the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, aforesaid direction was issued only in order to see that whether possession of the land in question pursuant to the impugned order was already taken over or not, so as to consider the matter further in light of the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Repeal Act, 1999. If the possession is not taken over the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 will stand abated.
4. As per the affidavit filed by Shri D.D.Kapadiya, at Para No.8, it has been stated as under:
“8. I respectfully say that the said Act came to be repealed on 30.03.1999 and upon repeal of Act, list was prepared with regard to the lands of which possession has been taken over by the State Government in accordance with law. I say that the land of the present petitioner does not appear in the list of lands which have been acquired by the State Government.”
5. Mr.Devnani, learned AGP is unable to show any material whereby it can be said that the possession was taken over of the land in question.
6. In view of the above, since possession of the land in question is stated to have been taken over or that no material is produced before this Court to show that possession of the land has already taken over prior to the date of which Repeal Act, 1999 came into force, the proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976, which are subject matter of the present petition shall stand abated. However, it is clarified that it would be open to the State Government to move for appropriate application including the calling of the present order, in the event, it has any authenticated material available to show that the possession of the land in question was already taken place, prior to Repeal Act, 1999. Subject to the aforesaid observation and direction, the petition shall stand disposed of.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) Tuvar