JUDGMENT
A.N. Divecha, J.
1. The order passed by the Competent Authority at Surat (respondent No. 1 herein) on 11th January 1985 under Section 21(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 2 herein) on 24th March 1988 in Appeal No. Surat-12 of 1985 is under challege in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner applied for permission under Section 21(1) of the Act with respect to final plot No. 12 in Town Planning Scheme No. 8 comprising of survery No. 34A and 34B admeasuring 10,650 square metres situated at Navagam, taluka Choryasi, district Surat (the disputed land for convenience). By the order passed by respondent No. 1 on 15th September 1979, such permission came to be granted subject to certain terms and conditions. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. The scheme which was submitted with the application under Section 21(1) of die Act consisted of 21 dwelling units admeasuring 79.90 square metres and 28 dwelling units admeasuring 32.30 square metres. It appears that the petitioner obtained the necessary approval with respect to the sanctioned scheme by the order at Annexure-B to this petition. It appears that later on the petitioners submitted a revised plan before the local authority and got approved the plan for construction of 17 dwelling units admeasuring between 63.70 square metres and 80 square metres and 36 dwelling units admeasuring 39.79 square metres (in all 53 dwelling units) as against the original sanctioned plan of 49 dwelling units. It appears that respondent No. 1 found such construction of more number of dwelling units in breach of the order at Annexure-B to this petition. Respondent No. 2 appears to have found that the petitioner also made breach of certain other conditions incorporated therein. Thereupon a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 15th December 1984 under Section 21(2) of the Act calling upon him to show cause why the permission granted under the order at Annexure-B to this petition should not be cancelled. A copy of the aforesaid show cause notice is at Annexure-E to this petition. The petitioner filed his reply thereto on 18th April 1984. Its copy is at Annexure-F to this petition. After hearing die parties, by his order passed on 11th January 1985 under Section 21(2) of the Act, respondent No. 1 cancelled the permission granted under the order at Annexure-B to this petition. A copy of the aforesaid order passed on 11th January 1985 is at Annexure-G to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before respondent No. 2 under Section 33 of the Act by means of Appeal No. Surat-12 of 1985. By his order passed on 24th March 1988 in the aforesaid appeal, respondent No. 2 dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure-H to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon moved this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-G to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-H to this petition.
3. The main ground on which the impugned order at Annexure-G to this petition came to be passed was that the construction of dwelling units was not in accordance with the scheme approved and the permission granted under the order at Annexure-B to this petition. As pointed out hereinabove, the scheme approved and the permission granted under the order at Annexure-B to this petition was for construction of 49 dwelling units of two different sizes. As pointed out hereinabove, the petitioner constructed in all 53 dwelling units. It cannot be gainsaid that the petitioner did not construct the dwelling units in accordance with the scheme approved and the permission granted on that basis under the order at Annexure-B to this petition.
4. The question, however is, as rightly submitted by Kum. Shah for the petitioner, wherther or not such breach of the order at Annexure-B to this petition is so serious as to warrant cancellation of the permission under the order at Annexure-B to this petition. As rightly submitted by Kum. Shah for the petitioner, the scheme of Section 21 of the Act is that a landholder would be permitted to retain his land in excess of the ceiling limit if he utilises such excess land for construction of dwelling units for the weaker sections of the society. In the present case, the petitioner was granted such permission with respect to his excess holding. He has utilised it for construction of dwelling units for the weaker sections of the society. It is true that he constructed more units than the number of units sanctioned under the scheme on the basis of which the necessary permission was granted by the order at Annexure-B to this petition. Shri Dave for the respondents is right in his submission to the effect that, before departing or deviating from the scheme approved by the specific authority and later on by respondent No. 1 by the order at Annexure-B to this petition, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have obtained approval of respondent No. 1 before getting sanctioned the revised plan for construction of 53 dwelling units for the weaker sections of the society as against the scheme for construction of 49 dwelling units for the weaker sections of the society. It may be noted that it is not the case of the respondents herein that by construction of more number of dwelling units the petitioner herein has tried to keep certain area of the land covered by the order at Annexure-B to this petition to himself. It is not the case of the respondents herein that by construction of more number of dwelling units, the petitioner has transgressed the underlying object behind Section 21 of the Act. It has been specified therein that no dwelling unit thereunder should exceed 80 square metres in the plinth area. In fact, as transpiring from the impugned order at Annexure-G to this petition, no dwelling unit constructed by the petitioner pursuant to tiie order at Annexure-B to this petition exceeds 80 square metres. In fact, if one goes by the scheme as originally approved, it was for construction of 21 dwelling units admeasuring 79.90 square metres and 28 dwelling units admeasuring 32.30 square metres. As against this, after obtaining the approval of the local authority with respect to the revised plans, the petitioner has constructed 17 dwelling units admeasuring between 63.70 square metres and 80 square metres and 36 dwelling units admeasuring 39.79 square metres. It, thus, becomes clear that four more smaller units have come to be constructed by the petitioner for housing four more families belonging to the weaker sections of the society. It is needless to repeat or to reiterate that the underlying object behind Section 21 of the Act is to provide a large number of accommodation to members of the weaker sections of the society.
5. In that view of the matter, by constructing more units on the disputed land, the petitioner can be said to have furthered the object of Section 21 of the Act rather than to frustrate it. I am, therefore, of the opinion that, though the departure or the deviation made by the petitioner from the scheme as originally sanctioned, on the basis of which the permission under the order at Annexure-B to this petition came to be granted would amount to a breach thereof which breach cannot be said to be so serious as to warrant cancellation of the permission granted thereunder.
6. I am, however, in respectful agreement with the submission urged before me’by Shri Dave for the respondents to die effect that no landholder after obtaining permission under Section 21(1) of the Act should be allowed to depart or to deviate therefrom at his sweet-will without obtaining the necessary approval from the Competent Authority in that regard. The breach of a condition attached to Section 21(1) of the Act is a breach and it need not be lightly condoned. It cannot be gainsaid mat, by constructing four more dwelling units, the petitioner has added to his profits in raising the scheme on the disputed land. He should part with some part thereof as a penalty for making breach of the order at Annexure-B to this petition by departing or deviating from the original scheme. I think the interests of justice would be fully met if the petitioner is directed to pay to the State Government an amount of Rs. 11,000/- (Rupees eleven thousand) only by way of penalty for breach of the aforesaid order at Annexure-B to this petition. It would be open to the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount in this Court on or before 18th June 1994. On deposit of such amount, the State Government should be permitted to withdraw it without any further act or application. It is clarified that the penalty amount has to be paid by the petitioner from his own pocket without making members of the scheme to contribute towards such penalty amount. The petitioner should file an undertaking to the effect that he has paid the aforesaid amount from his own pocket and no part of it is recovered or is to be recovered from any members of the scheme completed on the disputed land.
7. As rightly submitted by Shri Dave for the respondents, there is no provision either in Section 21 of the Act or in other provisions thereof regarding levy of penalty for breach of an order or conditions attached thereto passed under Section 21(1) of the Act. However, this Court is invested with extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is an admitted position that the scheme pursuant to the order at Annexure-B to this petition has been completed in all respects. I am told at the Bar by Kum. Shah for the petitioner that members of the weaker sections of the society have already occupied the dwelling units constructed on the disputed land. In order to protect their interests and in order to meet with the ends of justice, I have thought of imposing the penalty of Rs. 11,000/- on the petitioner for the aforesaid breach of the order at Annexure-B to this petition in exercise of the extraordinary powers conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. In the result, this petition is accepted. The order passed by the Competent Authority at Surat (respondent No.l herein) on 11th January 1985 under Section 21(2) of the Act at Annexure-G to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 2 herein) on 24th March 1988 in Appeal No. Surat-12 of 1985 at Annexure-H to this petition is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 11,000/- in this Court on or before 18th June 1994 along with the undertaking indicated in this judgment. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to Costs.