Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. While arguing in rejoinder, Mr.Nanavati for the original petitioner also sought to support the impugned judgment and argued that in the case of the former Ruler of Bhavnagar, he possessed certain lands admeasuring 952 acres and 33 gunthas situate at Vadva in Bhavnagar City and the same were sold out by registered Sale Deed dated 31st March 1971 to Palitana Sugar Mills on 2nd April 1971 for valuable consideration; that the said lands were bid lands and known as "Kalvi Bid"; that when the ULC Act came into force on 17th Feb.1976, the proceedings were pending under the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal; that Palitana Sugar Mills filled in the form under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the ULC Act and also applied for permission under Section 21 of the ULC Act; the State Govt. was required to decide as to whether ULC Act would be applicable and what would be the result of the proceedings under the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act; whether the scheme would be granted or not; the State Govt. after careful consideration passed an order on 5th Nov.1979 whereby the Govt. took the decision that the aforesaid lands known as "Kalvi Bid" were required to be dealt with under the provisions of the ULC Act and not under the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act; the competent authority by order dated 6th Nov.1979 granted permission under Section 29 of the ULC Act to build houses for weaker sections of the society; that by order dated 9th Nov.1979, the Dy.Collector, Bhavnagar in Ceiling Case No.1/76/77 held that having regard to the order passed by the Govt. in Revenue Department dated 5th Nov. 1979, the provisions contained in Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act are not applicable but the provisions of ULC Act are applicable and therefore, the proceedings in respect of the aforesaid land bearing Ceiling Case No.1/76/77 Bhavnagar was removed from the file. The Dy.Collector, Bhavnagar by letter dated 10th Jan.1990 informed the Chief Officer of Bhavnagar Municipality that the provisions contained in Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act are not applicable but the provisions contained in ULC Act are applicable and therefore, the aforesaid lands are required to be dealt with under the ULC Act. On the aforesaid premises, the argument which has been sought to be built up is that the Govt. had taken the view that on coming into force of the ULC Act, the provisions contained in the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act are not applicable and the proceedings pending on 17th Feb.1976 under the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act had to be filed and terminated and that they have to be initiated under the ULC Act. The grievance has been raised that the bid lands of the respondent which are situate in urban agglomeration of Rajkot are required to be dealt with under the ULC Act and that the provisions contained in the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act are not applicable and the bid lands in dispute were urbanised lands in Rajkot Urban Agglomeration and the same cannot be dealt with by the Revenue Tribunal or the lower authorities under the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act. It was further submitted that there was no factual basis for making a distinction in the cases of the lands of the nature with regard to Bhavnagar and which is in Rajkot. Mr.Nanavati also referred to the definition of the "land" as given in the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, under Section 2(17). However, Mr.Shelat has opposed it and has submitted that this argument cannot be raised in this Letters Patent Appeal because this point was never argued before the learned Single Judge and even in this Appeal, this argument has been raised only during the rejoinder and the point was never argued in the main arguments. We are of the view that it is not necessary for us to deal with this question as has been raised by Mr.Nanavati in view of our conclusions which have been arrived at in the earlier part of this judgment which are sufficient for dismissal of this appeal.