Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

HC-NIC Page 4 of 32 Created On Wed Jul 20 01:24:35 IST 2016 2.4 According   to   the   ULC   Authority,   in   the  year 1990 possession is said to have been taken  over  by the  Maintenance  Surveyor  in presence  of  the panchas.

2.5 An   Application   filed   by   the   original  petitioner   under   Section   20   of   the   ULC   Act   was  rejected   by   the   State   Government   on  23/28.11.1991.   In January, 1992, the petitioner  filed   Special   Civil   Application   No.258   of   1992  challenging   the   order   passed   on   the   application  under section 20 of the Act. Learned Single Judge  vide order dated 18.01.1992 issued rule making it  returnable   on   04.02.1992   and   granted   interim  relief   in   terms   of   paragraph   11(C)   of   the  petition viz. status quo qua the subject land and  the   said   petition   was   ordered   to   be   heard   with  Special   Civil   Application   No.3327   of   1989.     On  07.05.1999   ultimately  on repeal  of  the ULC  Act,  Special   Civil   Application   No.3327   of   1989   was  declared   to   be   abated   as   this   Court   found   that  the possession was not taken over and the learned  Government   Pleader   did   not   controvert   that  aspect.   On 11.10.1999 Special Civil Application  No. 258 of 1992 was withdrawn. 

4.4 Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent  relied on following case law on various issues:

With   regard  to  submissions  based   on Section  20   of   the   ULC   Act,   it   is   submitted   that   when  application  was pending  under  Section  20  of ULC  Act,   no   possession   could   have   been   taken. 

Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court  in the case of  Samrathben Manilal Chokshi & Anr.  v. State of Gujarat & Anr.  [1994(1) GLR 203].  On  the   aspect   of   court   shall   prejudice   no   man,  reliance is placed on the decision of this Court  in the case of Savitaben Ramanbhai Patel v. State  of Gujarat & Ors. [1999(1) GLR 860].  Reliance is  also placed on the decision of the Apex Court  in  the case of  Jang Singh v. Brij Lal [AIR 1986 SC  1631].  On   the  point   that   of  competent   authority  has trappings of court, reliance is placed on the  decision in the case of  P. Sarathy v. State Bank  of India [AIR 2000 SC 2023].   On the point about  possession of the subject land in the context of  factual scenario of this case, reliance is placed  in the case of State of U.P. v. Hari Ram reported  in [2013 AIR SCW 1683],  in which  the Apex Court  HC-NIC Page 14 of 32 Created On Wed Jul 20 01:24:35 IST 2016 has considered the word `may' and `shall' in the  context of section 10(3), (5) an (6) of the ULC  Act,   1976.   Reliance   is   also   placed   on   the  decision   of   the   Apex   Court   in   the   case  Vinayak  Kashinath   Shilkar   v.   Deputy   Collector   and  Competent Authority & Ors. 2012(4) SCC 719  about  effect   of   Repeal   Act,   1999   and   ULC   Ceiling   and  Regulation Act, 1976 is an expropriatory piece of  legislation   and   therefore   should   be   construed  strictly.

5 Heard   learned   Additional   Advocate  General   appearing   for   the   State   of   Gujarat   and  learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   and   perused  record,   including   the   impugned   judgment   in  juxtaposition   to   orders   passed   by   this   court  earlier in various proceedings to which reference  is already made in earlier paragraphs, the facts  that barring the aspect of taking over possession  of the subject land and effect of orders passed  initially of granting status quo qua the subject  land   in   both   the   writ   petitions   viz.   Special  Civil   Application   Nos.3327   of   1989   and   258   of  1992,   issuance   of   notification   under   Section  10(1), 10(3), 10(5) remained undisputed. Further,  after   publication   of   notification   dated  15.03.1989   under   Section   10(3)   of   the   Act   in  Government   Gazette   on   03.08.1989,   a   further  communication dated 24.07.1989 came to be issued  HC-NIC Page 15 of 32 Created On Wed Jul 20 01:24:35 IST 2016 by the competent authority  under the ULC Act to  Government   Press   to   publish   the   notification  dated 15.03.1989 [under section 10(3) of the Act]  also remained undisputed so are the facts about a  communication by Manager, Government Press dated  11.08.1989   to   the   competent   authority   under   ULC  Act   to   issue   fresh   notification   cancelling  earlier   notification   under   Section   10(3)   was  necessary   since   government   press   had   already  published the above notification dated 15.03.1989  in Government Gazette before communication dated  24.07.1989 by the competent authority, ULC not to  publish the notification could be received.

5.6 Further, from the record, it is revealed  from   the   orders   passed   in   the   earlier  proceedings,   the   competent   authority   under   ULC  Act,   categorically   declared   on   oath   that,   an  order under Sec. 8(4) dated 30.4.86 was passed by  the   Competent   Authority   and   Deputy   Collector,  Ahmedabad in respect of the vacant land held by  the   petitioner.   After   hearing   the   party   and  considering   the   objections,   a   final   statement  HC-NIC Page 29 of 32 Created On Wed Jul 20 01:24:35 IST 2016 dated 30.5.1986 under sec. 9 was served on him.  Pursuant   thereto   notification   under   sec.   10(1)  read   with   Rule   ­6   was   issued   on   7.8.1986.  Notification   u/s.10(1)   was   published   in   the  Gazette on 2.10.86 An appeal was preferred by the  petitioner being Appeal No. 158/86 dated 24.7.86  before   the   Urban   Land   Tribunal.   Notification  under sec.10(3) was sent to the Govt. Press for  Publication   in   the   Gazette   vide   letter   dated  10.7.89. Pursuant to which the said notification  u/s.   10(3)   was   published   in   the   Gazette   on  3.8.89.     That   the   Competent   Authority   by   his  letter dated 24.7.89 addressed to the Government  Press   informed   the   press   that   a   proclamation  dated   10.7.89   u/s.   10(3)   of   the   ULC   Act   for  publication is not required to be published as an  application u/s. 20 of the said Act for exemption  is still pending. In view of the provision of the  Act and the recent decision of the Hon'ble High  Court of Gujarat till the said application u/s 20  is not disposed of, notification u/s.10(3) cannot  be   advertised.   Vide   letter   dated   11.8.89   the  Govt. Press, Gandhinagar asked the respondents to  pass   the   necessary   orders   and   send   it   to   them.  Subsequently,   vide   letter   dated   26.9.1989   No.  ULC/Unit­2/493chandkheda/299.G/1954   competent  Authority and Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad ordered  the   Government   Press   Gandhinagar   to   cancel   the  10(3)   notification.     Therefore,   possession  HC-NIC Page 30 of 32 Created On Wed Jul 20 01:24:35 IST 2016 allegedly taken on 30/31.08.1990 by the competent  authority   cannot   be   said   to   be   possession  recognized   by   the   procedure   in   accordance   with  law.