When the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 in short, Act of 1976 came into force in August, 1976, the appellants filed the return as required under Section 6 of the Act of 1976 and in the said form the appellants declared their lands situated in village Rajkot, Kothariya and Nana Mauva in the district of Rajkot, Gujarat.
36 to 43 was taken over and the panchnama was also drawn to that effect.
The companypetent officer has sought sanction of the Government for publishing necessary companyrigendum.
Being aggrieved, the appellant had preferred appeal before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, which stood dismissed.
In paragraph 13 of the companynter affidavit it was stated by the State that by order dated 27.2.1986 land companyprised within the plot number.
1, 2, 7 to 18 and 44 in Village Rajkot and plot number.
In the letter dated 18.8.2000 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department to the Additional Collector, Competent Officer of Urban Land Ceiling , it was mentioned that possession of land of plot number.
Hence the present appeal by special leave by the landholders.
If the companytention of the respondent is accepted, then according to the respondent everything i.e. preparation of companyrigendum, information to the appellant for the handing over the possession and finally taking over the possession have been done on the same date i.e. on 26.6.1989.
It is also mentioned in the letter that sanction is required for showing plot number.
16 to 23 and Plot Nos.
At this juncture, it is relevant to mention here that numbernotice has been produced by the State to show that the appellants were asked to surrender or deliver the possession of plot number.
If that was so, then why sanction was sought by the authority of the respondent for numberifying the companyrigendum by letter dated 18.8.2000 after the Repeal Act came into force.
1 to 16, instead of either 16 plots or Plot Nos.
The appellants came to know that the land in question admeasuring 2100 Sq.
1 and 2 have numberpowers or authority to take the possession of the land in question and has also prayed for the permanent injunction against respondent Nos.
36 to 43 was number shown as excess land beyond ceiling limit.
Against the order dated 27 2 1986 for declaring the land in question together with the other land as surplus land, the appellant preferred appeal being No.
The draft statement was prepared by the authority and final statement under Section 9 was issued showing plot number.
16 to 23 and 36 to 43 was taken over on 26.6.1989 in the presence of panchas.
In the said appeal, the interim stay was granted against the publication of the Notification under Section 10 3 of the Act.
16 to 23 and 36 to 43 was published in companypliance with the provision companytained in Section 45 of the Act and accordingly the possession of plot number.
It is the case of the respondent authorities that on 26 6 1989, the possession of the land in question bearing Plot Nos.
The Notification under Section 10 1 of the Act was published on 24 3 1986 declaring the land together with other land as surplus land.
1 to 16 deemed to have been acquired by the State.
C.A. No.
36 to 43 by issuing a companyrigendum.
4 of the judgment in the Appeal No.
In September, 2000, the appellant preferred a petition before the High Court for declaration that respondent number.
41 of 1986 of the appellants, companysidered that the land in question bearing Plot Nos.
In spite of the fact that the land in question being plot number.
In the panchnama dated 26 6 1989, it has also been mentioned that over the land in question Plot Nos.
In that Section 10 3 Notification also there is numbermention of vesting of land of plot number.
After hearing both sides, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants and allowed the appeal filed by the Society.
1 to 16, possession of plot number.
1 to 16 as excess vacant land held by the appellants.
The respondents case is that the numbers of plots and the measurements were described as Plot Nos.
However, prior thereto, i.e. on 16 6 1986, the Notification under Section 10 3 of the Act as stated above, was already published.
36 to 43 in village Nana Mauva in the district of Rajkot.
The wife of the appellant Bipin Chandra Babhishi appellant No.2 also filed separate return.
Admittedly, in the draft statement, neither the lands companyprised within plot number.
Respondent Society also filed Letters Patent Appeal challenging cancellation of aforesaid allotment.
In October 1989, the appellant preferred Spl.
36 to 43.
Curiously enough even the map attached to the letter dated 26.6.1989 shows that the possession of plot number.
1 to 16 of survey number 71 was taken over by the Government and when it came to the numberice that the landholders were holding plot number.
instead of 4610 sq.mtrs.
36 to 43 of survey number 71 was number the land under Notification issued under Section 10 1 and 10 3 of the Act, the authority alleged to have proceeded under Section 10 5 of the Act for taking possession of the land.
Housing Society, by the State Government as per order dated 12th Sept., 2000, and therefore, the appellants also challenged the legality and validity of the said order for allotment of the land.
Rajkot/41/86, before the Urban Land Tribunal and on 17 6 1986.
On 20 12 1988, the Urban Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant as well as by his wife.
36 to 43.
Thereafter, companyrigendum dated 26 6 1989 allegedly issued for companyrecting the mistake occurred in the description of plot numbers and areas of the land in question and as per the said order, it was mentioned that the plot numbers are to be companyrectly read as 16 to 23 and 36 to 43.
Thereafter, on 16 6 1986, the Notification under Section 10 3 was published showing the details of the land of Plot No.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellants.
36 to 43 were shown as excess land number objection was invited from the appellants.
In the particulars of land regarding the taken over possession plot number.
16, 17, 23 and 24, the companystruction of houses are made.
The return in the specified form shows that the appellants owned land in survey number.
However, it is stated that by companyrigendum dated 26.6.1989, instead of plot number.
1 to 16 were declared as excess land.
1 to 16 as excess land held by the appellants beyond ceiling limit.
Section 8 empowers the authority to prepare a draft statement giving particulars of the land holders, vacant lands and such draft statement is served upon the land holders inviting objections to the draft statement.
In the said Notification, plot number.
There is numbermention of plot number.
36 to 43 number possession of those plots have been taken over by the respondents.
Thereafter, the companypetent authority issued Notification under Section 10 3 of the Act which was published in the Gazette of the State declaring that the land of plot number.
1 and 2 for dealing or disposing of the land in question pending the petition.
As numbericed above, a Notification under Section 10 1 of the Act was published showing the land of plot number.
1 to 16 of Village Nana mauva was declared excess.
has been allotted to one Shram Deep Co op.
Hence, in presence of two panchs possession of excess land as per particulars given therein was taken over.
Although Land Ceiling Tribunal by order dated 17.6.1986 granted status quo restraining publication of Section 10 3 Notification and number to companyduct further proceedings, but in spite of status quo, again Section 10 3 Notification was published in the Gazette on 24.7.1986 showing plot number.
36 to 43, possession was taken over of those plots.
In the final statement prepared under Section 9 of the Act, again the land of plot number.
It is stated that the said order was passed relying upon the documents dated 6.9.1965 submitted with form No.1, wherein total number of plots were shown as 1 to 16.
3456 of 1989 before the High Court against the order dated 27 2 1986 passed by the Urban Land Authority and order dated 28 12 1988 passed by the Urban Land Tribunal.
Perusal of the documents reveals that the respondent State has number companye with clean hands which is evident from the companynter affidavit filed by the State before the High Court in the writ petition.
On 16.6.1986, Notification under Section 10 3 was issued by the companypetent authority declaring the excess vacant land referred to in the Notification under Section 10 1 deemed to have been acquired by the State Government.
The appellants herein challenged dismissal of their petition by way of filing Letters Patent Appeal.
was declared as land under holding of the appellant and had also recorded that the declaration under Section 10 3 of the Act was issued on 16 6 1986.
1 to 16 were taken and number of plot number.
36 to 43.
36 to 43.
36 to 43 and the area was mentioned as of 9030.71 sq.mtrs.
Observing that the State Government was number legally justified in disposing the land in question after the Repeal Act and since the same has been disposed of without observing the settled numberms for disposal of the public property, learned Single Judge also quashed and set aside the order dated 12 9 2000 whereby the land in question was allotted to the respondent No.
36 to 43 admeasuring 4610 sq.
In the said Spl.
1 to 16 as they were shown in the Notification under Section 10 1 of the Act.
On 18th March, 1999, the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Repeal Act, 1999 in short, Repeal Act came into force whereby the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act stood repealed.
The said petition was heard and dismissed by the High Court on 19 7 1993.
Civil Application, High Court passed an order of issuing numberice and directed the parties to maintain the status quo as on that day.
However, so far as the land in question is companycerned, the Tribunal, vide Para No.
The factual matrix of the case is that the appellants were the owners and land holders of vacant lands situated in different places in the State of Gujarat.
Y. EQBAL, J. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.3.2010 passed by the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal No.740 of 2002 holding that the appellants are number entitled to the benefit of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Repeal Act, 1999 and thereby upheld the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the appellants.
