Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/26301/2007 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 26301 of 2007
=========================================================
GOVINDBHAI
NARANBAHI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SK PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR SATYAM CHHAYA ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 16/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.08.2006 passed by the
Principal Secretary, Urban Land Tribunal, refusing to entertain the
appeal of the petitioner on merits on the ground that after repeal of
the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 with effect from
30.03.1999, no appeal is maintainable.
Learned
advocate Mr.P.C.Kavina with Mr.S.K.Patel for the petitioner may be
justified in pointing out that the above view of the authority is not
legally sustainable. However, there are other reasons as to why I
don’t find this petition can be entertained.
Undisputed
facts emerging from the pleadings are that the petitioner filed
declaration in terms of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act
before the competent authority, who, by his order dated 15.07.1987
declared that the petitioner was holding total 1350.50 sq.mtr of
urban land. After granting one unit to him, therefore, the petitioner
was holding excess vacant land to the extent of 355.50 sq.mtrs. This
order was never challenged by the petitioner right till the year
2006. Not only that, from undisputed averments made in the
affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.3, it emerges that the
order of the competent authority was fully implemented. It is stated
that notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on
08.01.1988 inviting objections. Notification under Section 10(3) of
the Act was issued on 24.11.19888. By notice dated 19.08.1989 issued
under Section 10(5) of the Act, the land holder was asked to
surrender excess vacant land to the Government. An order under
Section 10(6) of the Act was made on 21.06.1990 and possession of the
land was taken from the petitioner on 30.06.1990 by drawing
Panchnama. Thereafter, compensation under Section 11 of the Act was
fixed by order dated 01.09.1992 and the same was also served on the
petitioner. It also stated in the affidavit that the compensation so
fixed by the Government has been duly paid way back in the year 1995
which has been accepted by the petitioner without any protest.
In
view of the above undisputed facts, I do not find any possibility of
entertaining the petition. The petitioner has, not having challenged
the order of the competent authority in the year 1987, cannot seek to
reopen the issues after nearly 20 years, that too, after having
accepted the compensation without any protest in the year 1995.
In
the result, the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
Notice
stands discharged.
(
Akil Kureshi, J. )
kailash
Top