IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 219 of 1996
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.871 OF 1997
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.R.JAIN
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement? No
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? No
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil
Judge? No
————————————————————–
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
URBAN LAND TRIBUNAL
————————————————————–
Appearance:
MRS VK PARIKH AGP as instructed by MR DA BAMBHANIA
for Petitioners
MR TH SOMPURA ASSTT GOVT PLEADER for Respondent No.1
MR GM JOSHI for Respondent No. 2
UNSERVED for Respondent No. 3, 4, 5
————————————————————–
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.R.JAIN
Date of decision: 08/04/97
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Urban Land
Tribunal in Appeal No.6/93, 82/93, 89/93 partly allowing
the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the
Competent Authority dated 13.11.1992 declaring 831 square
metres of land as excess holding, the petitioners – the
State of Gujarat and the Competent Authority have filed
this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India. While assailing the order,
Mr.Bambhania, learned Solicitor for the petitioners has
argued that the learned Tribunal has committed an error
in appreciating the facts as well as various provisions
of law and has erred in declaring only 61 square metres
of land as excess land instead of 831 square metres as
declared by the Competent Authority.
2.Mr.Joshi for respondent No.2 has argued that
there is gross delay in filing this petition. The
impugned order has been passed on 22.12.1993 whereas the
present petition is filed on 8.1.1996 and thus this
petition suffers from inordinate delay, laches and
acquiescence. On merits also, he supports the impugned
order contending that various provisions of law have been
appreciated by the Tribunal in proper perspective and
giving effect to the intention of the legislation.
3.Admittedly, the impugned order is passed on
22.12.1993. Mr.Bambhania for the petitioners has not
explained the circumstances under which gross delay has
been caused. As a cardinal rule, delay frustrates the
very object therefore it would be unreasonable, unjust
and illegal to entertain the petition after inordinate
delay. A mere glance at the dates of events reflects
that all throughout the petitioners have been negligent
in pursuing this matter. In this case, by virtue of the
order passed by the Tribunal, some rights have already
been vested in the respondent and by entertaining this
application after substantial delay would amount to
uprooting the respondent qua the rights which have
already been vested.
4.While considering the question of holding, the
Competent Authority has held existence of construction on
the land in question as is evident from its order dated
13.11.1992 but has conveniently overlooked the provisions
of Section 2 (g) regarding land appurtenant for which the
holder is entitled to get exemption. Had this question
been considered, probably fate of the matter would have
been otherwise and the Competent Authority would not have
been at pain to declare 831 square metres of land as
excess land.
5.I have gone through the impugned order and is
completely in consonance with various provisions of law.
The learned Tribunal has also considered the question of
exemption available to the landholder under Section 2 (g)
of the Act. While considering the question, the Tribunal
has also kept in mind location of the land, that is,
adjacent to national highway. It cannot be gainsaid that
when the land is situated just adjacent to national
highway then a particular portion of the land has to be
kept open while making construction and the land which
according to law is required to be kept open cannot be
considered as holding/vacant land of the petitioner.
Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly given deduction
for 860 square metres of land not falling within the
definition of ‘vacant land’ qua the land bearing survey
No.265.
6.Similarly, the Competent Authority has also given
deduction for 500 square metres of land under Section 2
(g) of the Act in relation to existing construction in
accordance with plans duly sanctioned by the Gram
Panchayat, Isanpur. Thus, on overall consideration of
facts, the learned Tribunal has declared only 61 square
metres of land as excess land. In my view, the learned
Tribunal has not committed any error of law or illegality
warranting interference by this court in exercise of writ
jurisdiction.
7.In the result, this petition being devoid of
merits requires rejection. Accordingly, petition is
dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands
vacated.
8.In view of above order, Civil Application No.871
of 1997 stands disposed of accordingly.
###########