Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ulc act in State Of Gujarat vs Naresh Himmatlal Vora on 13 January, 2017Matching Fragments
2. It is pertinent to note that the said appeal was filed by the Respondent after the Central Government had published Ordinance on 11.01.1999 repealing the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ULC Act' for short), and impugned order dated 26.03.1999 was passed by the Tribunal in between the period, when the Parliament had already repealed the said ULC Act by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repeal Act' for short) on 18.03.1999 and the State Government had adopted the same with effect from 30.03.1999.
4. Thereafter, the Respondent Naresh Himmatlal Vora son of Himmatlal Vora through his power of attorney holder Shri Rajesh Dhirajlal Shingala filed an appeal being No.11 of 1999 on 03.03.1999 before the ULC Tribunal under section 33 of the ULC Act challenging the said order dated 30.03.1988 passed by the Competent Authority i.e. almost after 11 years. The ULC Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 26.03.1999 condoning the gross delay without any justification and allowed the said appeal when the ULC Act was already repealed by the Parliament and just four days before the same was repealed in the State of HC-NIC Page 3 of 12 Created On Sat Aug 12 05:18:14 IST 2017 C/SCA/10770/2001 JUDGMENT Gujarat.
11. As stated hereinabove, the said appeal was filed on 03.03.1999 when the Central Government had already issued Ordinance repealing the ULC Act and the impugned order was passed on 26.03.1999 just four days before the ULC Act was repealed in the State Government. As transpiring from the noting made by the Deputy Mamlatdar in the HC-NIC Page 8 of 12 Created On Sat Aug 12 05:18:14 IST 2017 C/SCA/10770/2001 JUDGMENT Rojkam, the Additional Chief Secretary i.e. ULC Tribunal who had passed the impugned order, had specifically instructed to submit the draft order as the respondent was in hurry to get the order. It further appears that the remarks of the Competent Authority were called on 20.03.1999. However, there is no noting made in the Rojkam as to whether the said remarks were received by the Tribunal before passing of the impugned order or not. Of course, the Tribunal has mentioned about receipt of remarks made in the impugned order, however, the petitioner State has specifically contended in the petition that the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal without granting the opportunity of hearing to the the petitioner State. Thus, considering the dubious conduct of the respondent and the Tribunal, the Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order was passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice.
13. As transpiring from the record, the possession of the excess vacant land was already taken over by the State Government as back as in the year 1996 after following due process of law and thereafter the order of compensation under section 11 of the ULC Act was also passed prior to the repeal of the ULC Act and therefore, the land had stood legally vested in the State Government before the repeal of the ULC Act. Appeal was filed by the respondent through power of attorney holder on 03.03.1999 before the Tribunal, knowing fully well that ULC Act was to be repealed in the State of Gujarat, and therefore such an appeal filed by the Respondent at such a belated stage when the land had already stood vested in the Government should not have been entertained by the ULC Tribunal without verifying the record of the HC-NIC Page 10 of 12 Created On Sat Aug 12 05:18:14 IST 2017 C/SCA/10770/2001 JUDGMENT case.