Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ulc act in Babubai Mafatbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 10 March, 2017Matching Fragments
8. Parvatiben died on 25.10.1989. On 23.03.1990, the HC-NIC Page 4 of 49 Created On Sat Mar 11 00:17:38 IST 2017 Notification under Section10(3) of the ULC Act was published and on 11.11.1990, notice under Section 10(5) of the said Act was issued. On 03.12.1991, a Panchnama came to be drawn under the ULC Act. On 01.02.1992, the present petitioner wrote a letter to the ULC authority, informing it not to proceed with the matter, as he has filed the petition in this Court. Along with the said letter, the draft of the petition was also annexed.
(iv) That the land belonging to the petitioner could not have been allotted by the State Government in favour of respondents Nos.3 and 4 as the State Government was never in possession of the said land. The notice under Sections10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act issued upon Parvatiben is not legal or valid and no legal possession was taken over from the petitioner in view of the mandatory provisions and requirements of Section10(5) HC-NIC Page 9 of 49 Created On Sat Mar 11 00:17:38 IST 2017 of the ULC Act. The said notice is a composite notice under Sections10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act, which is not warranted by law.
(i) There is a gross delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the notice under Section10(5) of the ULC Act. The land of Parvatiben was declared as excess vacant land in the year 1990. Notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was issued on 11.11.1990 and the Panchnama was drawn on 03.12.1991. Thereafter, the possession of HC-NIC Page 13 of 49 Created On Sat Mar 11 00:17:38 IST 2017 the land was taken over by the State Government and the land came to be allotted to respondents Nos.3 and 4. The land remained Government vacant land even in the revenue records. The petitioner is well aware of the said position as is evident from his letter dated 01.02.1992, written to the ULC authority and the draft of the petition proposed to be filed, but never filed, in this Court as well as the letter of the ULC Authority to the petitioner dated 06.02.1992. Hence, in view of the fact that the proceedings terminated in the year 1991, there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner who has chosen to file the present petition only in the year 2015, even though he had express knowledge of the same since, at least, the year 1992.
22. Parvatiben executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner on 27.10.1986. Not satisfied with that Parvatiben then executed a Will dated 13.08.1987 in favour of the petitioner. However, on 02.03.1989, the appeal filed by Parvatiben against the declaration of the land in question as surplus land came to be rejected by the Urban Land Tribunal. Parvatiben died on 25.10.1989. The Notification under Section10(3) of the ULC Act was published on 23.03.1990. The impugned notice under Section10(5) of the ULC Act was issued on 11.11.1990. Pursuant thereto, a Panchnama was drawn under the ULC Act on 03.12.1991. The petitioner is well aware of all these facts and stages of litigation and such knowledge has not been denied before this Court. on 01.02.1992, the petitioner wrote a letter to the ULC Authority informing it not to proceed ahead with the matter as a petition has been filed in this Court. Along with the letter, a draft of the petition was appended. A perusal of the draft of the petition which has been placed on record along with the affidavitinreply filed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 HC-NIC Page 28 of 49 Created On Sat Mar 11 00:17:38 IST 2017 reveals that the petitioner was fully aware of the orders passed by the Competent Authority under the ULC Act as well as the Urban Land Tribunal.