Gujarat High Court
Himatlal K. Parekh vs Competent Authority And Deputy ... on 23 October, 1989
Equivalent citations: AIR1990GUJ130, (1990)1GLR626, AIR 1990 GUJARAT 130
JUDGMENT Ravani, J.
1. The appellant is a holder of vacant land situated within the urban agglomeration area of Raikot. The Competent Officer, by order dated December 7, 1983 declared that out of the total land holding of the petitioner, land admeasuring 2015.30 sgm. is surplus. Against the aforesaid order the appellant preferred appeal under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 before the Urban Land Tribunal. The appeal has been rejected vide order dated September 7, 1987. The appellant challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal by filing special civil application No. 1009 of 1988. The petition came up for hearing before the learned single Judge (Coram: G. T. Nanavati, J.) of this High Court who has summarily rejected the petition as per his order dated March 1, 1988. It is against this order that the present letters patent appeal is filed.
2. The Urban Land Tribunal at any Tate exercises quasi judicial powers, if not judicial powers, while deciding appeal under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Whatever label be attached to the petitions challenging the legality and validity of the orders that may be passed by the Urban Land Tribunal, in substance and in essence such petitions are under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or at any rate in such matters the High Court is to exercise its certiorari jurisdiction. Thus such petitions will have to be decided on the basis of the record and within the very limited scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Once it is held as above, letters patent appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge in such matters would not be maintainable. Therefore, on this short ground alone, letters patent appeal is liable to be dismissed.
3. We are fortified in our view by a Division Bench judgment of this High Court rendered in L.P.A. No. 202 of 1984 decided on June 27,1984 (Coram: P. S. Poti, C.J. and S. L. Talati, J.). In that case, special civil application No. 369 of 1984 was filed challenging the legality and validity of an order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal in an appeal under Section 33 of the Act. The petition was summarily rejected by learned single Judge (Coram: N. H. Bhatt, J.) as per order dated March 19, 1984. The Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal held as follows :
"Since the order under challenge is that of the Urban Lands Tribunal and Ex-Officio Secretary to Government passed in his capacity as Tribunal, the petition before the learn ed single Judge could have been only under Art. 227 of the Constitution and, if so, the Letters Patent Appeal is not competent. Hence dismissed."
Similar view is taken by a Division Bench consisting of P. R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J. and G. T. Nanavati, J. in Letters Patent Appeal No.213 of 1986 decided on February 19, 1987. 1 n that case also an order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal refusing to condone the delay in filing appeal was challenged by way of petition before this High Court and learned single Judge of this High Court (Coram: D. H. Shukla, J.) rejected the petition. The matter was carried before Division Bench by way of L.P.A. No. 213 of 1986. While dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench observed that the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the same, and the petition was under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order passed by the Tribunal which dismissed the appeal of the appellants on the ground that it was time barred. There after the Court observed as follows:
"Our Court has held that the Letters Patent Appeal will not lie against such an order passed in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.",
4. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, petition challenging legality and validity of order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal in appeal under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is in substance and in essence a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When such petitions are decided by learned single Judge of this High Court one way-or the other, the same cannot be challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeal before Division Bench of this High Court. In above view of the matter, Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. Hence dismissed.
5. Appeal dismissed.