Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Savitaben Ramanbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 5 November, 1998
He has also relied
upon the decision of this Court in the case of
Savitaben Ramanbhai Patel versus State of Gujarat and
Others reported in 1999 (1) GLR 860, to submit that
if the application under Section 20 or 21 was pending
for consideration, the competent authority could not
have proceeded beyond the stage of Section 10 (2) of
the said Act.
State Of Punjab vs Suraj Parkash Kapur, Etc on 4 May, 1961
14. Though it is sought to be submitted by learned
advocates for the petitioners that the competent
authority could not have declared the land in question
as the excess vacant land, as the same was granted
exemption under Section 20 of the said Act, to the
original owner Khumabhai, the Court does not find any
substance in the said submission also. Apart from the
fact that the original landholder Khumabhai or his
heirs had never bothered to challenge the order passed
by the competent authority declaring the said land as
excess vacant land, the order granting exemption under
Section 20 passed by the respondent No.1 was never
produced by them before the respondent No.2. The Court
had perused the original file of the proceedings
conducted by the respondent No.2, produced by the AGP
for perusal of the Court, and had found that the
original owner Khumabhai had received the notices
issued by the respondent No.2 by registered post while
processing his form filed under Section 6 of the said
Act. It is also pertinent to note that by way of said
notices, the respondent No.2 had called upon the said
Khumabhai to produce the necessary documents as
mentioned therein, and more particularly, the order,
Page 15 of 17
HC-NIC Page 15 of 17 Created On Sat Aug 06 05:14:25 IST 2016
C/SCA/9559/1995 CAV JUDGMENT
if any passed under Section 20 or 21 of the said Act,
however, neither the said Khumabhai nor his legal
heirs had filed any reply to the said notices, nor had
produced any such documents. Merely because the copy
of the order dated 19.04.1979 passed by the State
Government was shown to have been forwarded to the
respondent - competent authority, it cannot be
presumed that the respondent No.2 had received it, nor
be expected that the respondent - competent authority
was aware about the said order. A faint attempt was
sought to be made by the learned counsels for the
petitioners to submit that there was a reference of
the order passed under Section 20 in the preamble of
the impugned order, passed by the competent authority,
however, on perusal the original order from the file,
the Court had found that the impugned order was passed
on the cyclostyled form, and from the list of
documents mentioned at the top of the impugned order,
the serial No.2, with regard to the order under
Section 20 was scored out, meaning thereby, no such
order was there on record or perused by the respondent
No.2. There cannot be any disagreement with the ratio
laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases relied
upon by the petitioners, however, they have no
application to the facts of the present case. The
Court has found that the impugned order having
remained unchallenged by the legal heirs of the
original landholder, and also by the original
petitioner Baldevbhai for about eight years, the
proceedings under the ULC Act had stood concluded in
the meantime, and that the land in question had vested
Page 16 of 17
HC-NIC Page 16 of 17 Created On Sat Aug 06 05:14:25 IST 2016
C/SCA/9559/1995 CAV JUDGMENT
in the Government, which was further disposed of by
allotting the same to the poor and needy persons by
the State Government under Section 23 of the said Act.
If at this juncture, any order is passed by this Court
disturbing the impugned order, that would certainly
adversely affect the said persons, who are not party
to this petition. Though it is sought to be submitted
by the learned advocates for the petitioners that the
possession of the land had remained with the
petitioners even after the proceedings under Section
10(5), the said submission has no substance.
Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar vs Dy.Collector & Competent Auth.& Ors on 29 February, 2012
8. The learned advocate Mr. P.M. Bhatt, appearing
for the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, submitted that the
said petitioners being the last purchasers, are
parties effected, and therefore, the State Government
before allotting the land in question to the 83
persons should have given opportunity of hearing to
the said petitioners. Relying upon the decision of
Supreme Court in the case of Vinayak Kashinath
Shilkar versus Deputy Collector and Competent
Authority and Others reported in (2012) 4 SCC 718,
and of this Court in the case of Indrajeetsinh P.
Geel versus Competent Authority & Deputy Collector
and Another reported in 2006 (3) GLH 487, he
Page 9 of 17
HC-NIC Page 9 of 17 Created On Sat Aug 06 05:14:25 IST 2016
C/SCA/9559/1995 CAV JUDGMENT
submitted that competent authority was required to
strictly adhere to the provisions of the said Act, and
possession having remained with the said petitioners,
the proceedings under the ULC Act had stood abated
under Section 4 of the Repeal Act.
Section 4 in The Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
State Of Assam & Ors vs Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors on 27 November, 2014
The
Supreme Court in the latest decision in the case of
State of Assam versus Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma, reported
in (2015) 5 SCC 321 has inter alia held that if the
owner did not challenge the action of the respondent
authorities of taking over possession under Section
10(5) of the Act, forcible taking over possession
would acquire legitimacy by sheer lapse of time. The
question whether actual physical possession was taken
over or not remains a seriously disputed question of
fact, which is not amenable to a determination by the
High Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
Indrajitsing P. Geel vs Competent Authority And Deputy ... on 25 August, 2006
8. The learned advocate Mr. P.M. Bhatt, appearing
for the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, submitted that the
said petitioners being the last purchasers, are
parties effected, and therefore, the State Government
before allotting the land in question to the 83
persons should have given opportunity of hearing to
the said petitioners. Relying upon the decision of
Supreme Court in the case of Vinayak Kashinath
Shilkar versus Deputy Collector and Competent
Authority and Others reported in (2012) 4 SCC 718,
and of this Court in the case of Indrajeetsinh P.
Geel versus Competent Authority & Deputy Collector
and Another reported in 2006 (3) GLH 487, he
Page 9 of 17
HC-NIC Page 9 of 17 Created On Sat Aug 06 05:14:25 IST 2016
C/SCA/9559/1995 CAV JUDGMENT
submitted that competent authority was required to
strictly adhere to the provisions of the said Act, and
possession having remained with the said petitioners,
the proceedings under the ULC Act had stood abated
under Section 4 of the Repeal Act.
1