{"id":160594,"date":"2009-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2"},"modified":"2016-04-23T13:58:09","modified_gmt":"2016-04-23T08:28:09","slug":"niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Niranjan vs Competent on 18 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Niranjan vs Competent on 18 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Mohit S. H.N.Devani,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/116420\/2006\t 13\/ 13\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 1164 of 2006\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 6560 of 1990\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH\n \n\n\t\t\tand\n \nHONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n \n \n=================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?    \n\t\t\t                                                 Yes\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?               Yes\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?       \n\t\t\t                                                      No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?                             No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?   No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=================================================\n \n\nNIRANJAN\nMAGANLAL MEHTA - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nCOMPETENT\nAUTHORITY & ADDL. COLLECTOR & 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n================================================= \nAppearance\n \n\nMR\nVIBHUTI NANAVATI for Appellant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3  \nMS\nJIRGA JHAVERI AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n3, \n=================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 18\/03\/2009  \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI)<\/p>\n
1.\tAdmit.\n<\/p>\n
Ms. Jirga Jhaveri waives service of notice of admission of the appeal
\non behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the facts of the case,
\nthe matter is taken up for final hearing today.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThis
\nLetters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is
\ndirected against the judgement and order dated 7th
\nFebruary, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the
\npetition has been dismissed and the order dated 14.11.1984 passed by
\nthe Competent Authority and Additional Collector, respondent No.1
\nherein as well as the order dated 6.10.87 passed by the Urban Land
\nTribunal respondent No.2 herein which were subject matter of
\nchallenge in the writ petition have been affirmed.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\nappellants herein are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased
\nPannaben Niranjan Mehta, who was the original petitioner in the writ
\npetition. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the
\nShri Niranjan Mehta, husband of the petitioner (hereinafter referred
\nto as  the declarant ) had filed a statement under section 6 of
\nthe Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter
\nreferred to as  the Act ) in the prescribed Form No.1, on behalf
\nof his family specifying the extent of lands held by his family
\nmembers all of which are situated in Ahmedabad as under:\n<\/p>\n
Sr.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tNo.\n<\/p>\n
Name
\n\t\t\t\tof village<\/p>\n
Survey
\n\t\t\t\tNo.\n<\/p>\n
Area<\/p>\n
Manner
\n\t\t\t\tin which acquired<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
City
\n\t\t\t\tRajpur-Hirpur<\/p>\n
T.P.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tScheme No.4, Final Plot No.73<\/p>\n
739.12
\n\t\t\t\tsq. mts.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\t\t\t\tlease for 999 years<\/p>\n
2.<\/p>\n
Thaltej<\/p>\n
46<\/span><\/p>\n
829.28
\n\t\t\t\tsq. mts.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\t\t\t\tmember of society<\/p>\n
3.<\/p>\n
Khadia<\/p>\n
2695<\/span><\/p>\n
18.50
\n\t\t\t\tsq. mts.\n<\/p>\n
Residential
\n\t\t\t\thouse. By succession<\/p>\n
4.<\/p>\n
Khadia<\/p>\n
2682<\/span><\/p>\n
99<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tsq. mts<\/p>\n
Residential
\n\t\t\t\thouse. By succession<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
Paldi.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tSamasth Brahmashatriya Society, <\/p>\n
Sub-plot
\n\t\t\t\tNo.88 Bunglow No.89<\/p>\n
635<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tSq. mts<\/p>\n
House.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tBy succession<\/p>\n
\tAs
\nper the statement filed by the declarant the total holding of the
\nfamily was shown to be 2320.90 sq. mts. It may be pertinent to note
\nthat it was specified in the said form that land admeasuring 829.28
\nsq. mts of Vanshri Co-op. Housing Society situated at Thaltej is the
\nself acquired property of Pannaben Niranjanbhai Mehta (hereinafter
\nreferred to as  the petitioner ) and is of her sole ownership
\nwherein no one has any right or share. Against the column  lands
\nheld as owner  the area shown was 1568.40 sq. mts. and against the
\ncolumn regarding   status of the lands as to whether held as
\nindividual or HUF etc.  land admeasuring 1568.40 sq. mts was shown
\nto be joint family property and 829.28 sq.mts of land is shown
\nagainst the column  share of individual in co-operative society .
\nIn the column for ad-hoc assessment of excess vacant land and the
\nlands which are required to be handed over to the Government lands of
\nRajpur- Hirpur and Thaltej totally admeasuring 1319 sq. mts. were
\nshown.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tBy
\nan order dated 14.11.1984 passed under section 8(4) of the Act, the
\nCompetent Authority found that except for the property shown at
\nserial No.2, all the lands were H.U.F. properties; that the
\ndefinition of family includes husband, wife and their minor children,
\nhence the land held by the wife is required to be clubbed together to
\ndetermine the holding of the family; that the record indicates that
\nthe Samast Brahmakshatriya Co-operative Housing Society is the
\noccupier of the property shown at serial No.5, hence the same cannot
\nbe taken into consideration for the purpose of computing  the
\nholding; that though the properties at serial No.3 and 4 are built up
\nproperties the same are to be taken into consideration while
\ncomputing the extent of vacant land held by the applicant. The
\nCompetent Authority found that the total holding of the applicant was
\n1685 sq. mts. and held that the applicant was entitled to retain 1000
\nsq. mts. of land and declared 685 sq. mts. of land as excess vacant
\nwhich is to be acquired by the State Government. The Competent
\nAuthority further held that considering the contents of the transfer
\nagreements in respect of the properties other than the property at
\nserial No.2, the Thaltej property at serial No.2 being the self
\nacquired property of the wife of the declarant, he was ordering that
\n685 sq. mts. out of the same be handed over to the Government.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tBeing
\naggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Competent Authority the
\ndeclarant preferred an appeal under section 33 of the Act before the
\nUrban Land Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as  the Tribunal ).
\nOne of the pleas raised before the Tribunal was that the location of
\nretainable land should be changed so that the appellant may surrender
\nexcess vacant land (if any) out of TP 4 F.P. No.73 of Rajpur-Hirpur
\nand not out of Survey No.46 of Thaltej as ordered by the Competent
\nAuthority. The Tribunal by its order dated 6th October,
\n1987 dismissed the appeal but observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
 However,
\nafter verifying that there is no impediment to the change of location
\nof vacant land, it should amend the final statement and map etc. to
\nchange the location of excess vacant land from S.No.46 Plot No.10 to
\nT.P.4 F.P. 73 of Rajpur-Hirpur.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIt
\nappears that by a communication dated 10.5.88 addressed to the
\nCompetent Authority, the declarant asked for permission to sell the
\nRajpur-Hirpur property and requested that the property of Thaltej
\nSurvey No.46 be acquired. Thereafter further proceedings under the
\nAct were taken and notifications under section 10(1) and 10(3) of the
\nAct were published on 19.1.1989 and 24.4.1989 respectively. Notice
\nunder section 10(5) of the Act came to be issued on 27.6.1990, which
\naccording to the respondents was served on 7.7.1990. Thereafter the
\npossession of 685 sq. mts. of land bearing sub-plot No.10 of Survey
\nNo.46 of Mouje Thaltej (hereinafter referred to as  the land in
\nquestion ) was taken over in the presence of panchas by a panchnama
\ndated 28.8.1990. By a notice dated 27.6.1990 the declarant was called
\nfor hearing for determination of compensation in respect of the land
\nin question. It may be pertinent to note that though the land in
\nquestion was the individual self acquired property of the petitioner,
\nall the aforesaid notices and Notifications were issued in the name
\nof the declarant. It is at this stage that the petitioner filed the
\nabove numbered Special Civil Application before this Court
\nchallenging the orders dated 4.11.1984 and 6.10.1987 passed by the
\nCompetent Authority and the Tribunal respectively, with respect to
\nthe petitioner s property situate at Van Shree Coooperative Housing
\nSociety, Thaltej, Ahmedabad and lands bearing Survey No.2694 and 2682
\nof Khadia Shree Ramji Sheri, Ahmedabad.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tBefore
\nthe learned Single Judge the main contention raised on behalf of the
\npetitioner was that  throughout the proceedings under the Act, no
\nnotice had been issued to her despite the fact that she was the owner
\nof the property in question. The learned Single Judge was of the view
\nthat for the purpose of processing the declaration filed under the
\nprovisions of the Act, the husband of the petitioner and the
\npetitioner herself were one common person; that at all stages, the
\nhusband of the petitioner had actively participated in the
\nproceedings before the Competent Authority; that the petitioner had
\nmade no grievance about the exclusive participation of her husband in
\nthis regard; that it was not stated anywhere in the petition that her
\nhusband had duped her by declaring the land held by her as one that
\nthe authority should acquire. The learned Single Judge held that the
\ndeclaration was processed with full participation of respondent No.4-
\nhusband of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner cannot make a
\ngrievance that the entire process was completed without hearing her.
\nThe learned Single Judge accordingly found no merit in the petition
\nand rejected the same, which has given rise to the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tHeard
\nMr Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellants and Ms Jirga
\nJhaveri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
\nrespondent-authorities.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tMr
\nNanavati, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the
\nproperty which was declared as excess vacant and appropriated by the
\nauthority under the Act was of the ownership of the petitioner and
\nthe same was appropriated without complying with the principles of
\nnatural justice; that under the Act, wife’s property is to be clubbed
\ntogether for the purpose of ascertaining the holding of the family,
\nhowever, merely because the property is to be clubbed together,  does
\nnot mean the petitioner who is the holder of certain property in her
\nown name, is not entitled to any notice under the provisions of the
\nAct. It is accordingly submitted that the entire proceedings right
\nfrom the stage of the proceedings under Section 8(4) of the Act till
\nthe taking over of the possession of the property in question are in
\nbreach of the principles of natural justice as well as violative of
\nthe provisions of the Act inasmuch as the statutory provisions of the
\nAct, which provide that notice be issued to the holder, have not been
\ncomplied with. It is accordingly submitted that the impugned orders
\npassed by the authorities below are required to be quashed and set
\naside on this ground  alone and the proceedings subsequent to the
\npassing of the orders under Section 8(4) are also required to be
\nquashed and set aside on the ground of being violative of the
\nstatutory provisions inasmuch as no notice has been issued to the
\nappellant as required under the provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nlearned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance upon a
\ndecision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs.
\nBE Billimoria, 2003 (7) SCC 336 for the proposition that the Urban
\nLand (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 being an expropriatory
\nlegislation is required to be construed strictly.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nlearned Advocate has also made elaborate submissions questioning the
\nvalidity of the panchnama dated 28.8.1990 as well as the taking over
\nof possession of the land in question on behalf of the State
\nGovernment. However, considering the view that we are inclined to
\ntake in the matter, it is not necessary to refer to the same in
\ndetail.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tOn
\nthe other hand, Ms Jirga Jhaveri appearing on behalf of the
\nrespondent-authorities has vehemently opposed the appeal. It is
\nsubmitted that throughout the proceedings, the petitioner had
\nremained a silent spectator and had not voiced any grievance with
\nregard to the non-issuance of any notice to her. It is submitted that
\nunder the provisions of the Act, a person includes a family and that
\nwhen the declarant is issued a notice under the provisions of the
\nAct, the same would take within its ambit, the entire family
\nincluding the wife. Hence, no separate notice was required to be
\nissued to the petitioner. In support of her submission, Ms Jhaveri
\nhas placed reliance upon a decision rendered by a learned Single
\nJudge of this Court in the case of Patel Gordhan Kadvabhai & Ors.
\nvs. Competent Authority & Additional Collector, Rajkot &
\nOrs.,<\/a> 1988 (1) GLR 121 wherein it has been held that an association
\nor body of individuals are one person, though they may be different
\nindividuals. Simply because they are different individuals who have
\nformed an association or body of individuals, each different
\nindividual is not required to be heard either under the provisions of
\nthe Act  or under the provisions of the Rules.  It is accordingly
\nsubmitted that the decision would squarely apply to the facts of the
\npresent case as the definition of person also includes the family.
\nHence, no notice was required to be issued to each individual member
\nof the family.\n<\/p>\n
\tReliance
\nis also placed upon a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of
\nthis Court in the case of Vipinchandra Wadilal Bavishi vs. Competent
\nAuthority & Deputy Collector, Rajkot & Anr.,<\/a> 1994 (1) GLR 505
\nfor the proposition that while working out the extent of land for the
\npurposes of Sections 6 to 10 of the Act, the property of the husband
\nand wife have to be clubbed together.\n<\/p>\n
\tReliance
\nis also placed upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this
\nCourt in the case of Narmadaben D\/o Chhotabhai Gelabhai vs. Competent
\nAuthority & Addl. Collector (ULC), Vadodara & Ors.,<\/a> 2002 (2)
\nGLH (UJ) 9.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nis accordingly submitted that no individual notice was required to be
\nserved upon the petitioner and that there was no infirmity in the
\norders passed by the Competent Authority as well as in the subsequent
\nproceedings taken under the provisions of the Act.  It is further
\nsubmitted that the learned Single Judge has carefully examined all
\nthe submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and has given a
\nreasoned judgment, turning down the contentions raised on behalf of
\nthe petitioner, which does not call for any intervention by this
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tUpon
\nperusal of the record of the case, it is apparent that there is no
\ndispute that the petitioner was the owner of the land in question and
\nthat the same was her self acquired property and none of the other
\nfamily members had any right over the same. There is also no dispute
\nregarding the fact that at no stage of the proceedings culminating
\ninto the taking over of possession of the land in question has any
\nnotice under the Act been issued to the petitioner.  The
\nmain contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that it was
\nincumbent upon the authorities to issue a notice to the petitioner
\nwhereas the defence of the respondents is that as the definition of
\n person  includes family, no individual notice is required to be
\ngiven to other family members, once notice is issued to the
\ndeclarant. It would be, therefore, necessary to examine certain
\nprovisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tSub-section
\n(4) of Section 6 of the Act  provides that the statement under
\nsub-section (1) of the Act shall be filed in case of a family by the
\nhusband or the wife. Section 8 of the Act provides that on the basis
\nof the statement filed under Section 6 and after such inquiry as the
\ncompetent authority may deem fit to make, the competent authority
\nshall prepare a draft statement in respect of the person who has
\nfiled the statement under Section 6.\n<\/p>\n
\tSub-section
\n(3) of Section 8 provides that the draft statement shall be served in
\nsuch manner as may be prescribed on the person concerned together
\nwith a notice stating that any objection to the draft statement shall
\nbe  preferred within thirty days of the service thereof. As to the
\nmanner of service under sub-section (3) of Section 8, the same is
\nprescribed by Rule 5 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
\nRules, 1976 (the Rules). Rule 5 of the Rules insofar as the same is
\nrelevant for the purposes of the present case lays down that the
\ndraft statement shall be served, together with the notice referred to
\nin sub-section (3) of Section 8 on   (i) the holder of the vacant
\nlands, and (ii) all other persons, so far as may be known, who have,
\nor are likely to have any claim to, or interest in the ownership, or
\npossession, or both, of the vacant lands, by sending the same by
\nregistered post addressed to the person concerned -(i) in the case of
\nholder of the vacant lands, to his address as given in the statement
\nfiled in pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 6, and (ii) in the
\ncase of other persons at their last known addresses.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThe
\nexpression  to hold  has been defined under Section 2(l) of the
\nAct, which reads thus  :-\n<\/p>\n
 (l)\t to
\nhold  with its grammatical variations, in relation to any vacant
\nland, means –\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(i)\tto
\nown such land; or<\/p>\n
(ii)\tto
\npossess such land as owner or as tenant or as mortgagee or under an
\nirrevocable power of attorney or under a hire-purchase agreement or
\npartly in one of the said capacities and partly in any other of the
\nsaid capacity or capacities.\n<\/p>\n
\tExplanation.\n<\/p>\n
– Where the same vacant land is held by one person in one capacity
\nand by another person in another capacity, then, for the purposes of
\nthis Act, such land shall be deemed to be held by both such persons;\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThough
\nthe expression  holder  has not been defined under the Act, in
\nview of the meaning attributed to the expression  to hold ,
\nholder would mean a person who owns any vacant land, or possesses
\nsuch land as owner or tenant or as mortgagee or under an irrevocable
\npower of attorney or under a hire-purchase agreement or partly in one
\nof the said capacities and partly in any other of the said capacity
\nor capacities.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tIn
\nthe facts of the present case, it is an admitted position, which also
\nfinds support in the declaration filed under Section 6 of the Act,
\nthat the land in question situated in Van Shree Cooperative Housing
\nSociety admeasuring 829.25 sq.mtrs. was of the individual ownership
\nof the petitioner Pannaben Niranjan Mehta and was her self-acquired
\nproperty. Thus the petitioner was the holder of the land in question
\nwithin the meaning of the said term as envisaged under the provisions
\nof the Act. In the circumstances, as prescribed under Rule 5 of the
\nRules read with Section 8(3) of the Act, the petitioner being the
\nholder of the land in question was entitled to the service of  notice
\nunder sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act. It is an admitted
\nposition that no such notice was served upon the petitioner. In the
\ncircumstances, the proceedings under the Act to that extent would
\nstand vitiated as being violative of the statutory provisions of Rule
\n5 of the Rules read with Section 8(3) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tAs
\nalready noted hereinabove during the course of the proceedings under
\nthe Act culminating into the taking over of possession of the land in
\nquestion all notices and Notifications have been issued in the name
\nof the declarant. A perusal of the Notifications under section 10(1)
\nand 10(3) of the Act shows the name of the declarant Niranjan
\nMaganlal Mehta under the column  Name of Landholder  despite the
\nfact that the petitioner Pannaben was holder of the said land. Thus
\nby the said Notifications under section 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act,
\nwhat is vested in the Government is the land belonging to declarant
\nwho was not the holder of the land. In the circumstances, it cannot
\nbe said that the land belonging to the petitioner has been vested in
\nthe Government under the said Notifications. In the circumstances the
\nnotifications under sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act stand
\nvitiated, as they do not indicate the name of the holder.
\nConsequently taking over of possession pursuant to such notifications
\nalso stands vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
17.
\nThe decisions on which reliance has been placed upon by the learned
\nAssistant Government Pleader, do not in any manner support the case
\nof the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\ndecision in the case of Patel Gordhan Kadvabhai & Ors. vs.
\nCompetent Authority,<\/a> (supra) refers to lands jointly held by an
\nassociation of person, whereas in the facts of the present case, the
\nappellant was holding the said lands in an individual capacity and
\nhence the said decision would not apply to the facts of the present
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
\tInsofar
\nas the decision in the case of Vipinchandra Wadilal Bavishi vs.
\nCompetent Authority<\/a> (supra), there is no quarrel with the proposition
\nthat the lands of the husband and wife are to be clubbed together for
\nthe purposes of determining the extent of holding of the family.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\ndecision in the case of Narmadaben D\/o Chhotabhai Gelabhai vs.
\nCompetent Authority (supra) in fact supports the case of the
\npetitioner inasmuch as it has been held that when it was known to the
\nCompetent Authority that the petitioner therein had a claim to the
\nownership and possession of the lands, the petitioner therein was
\nentitled to a notice as envisaged under section 8(3) of the Act. The
\nrequirement is mandatory.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tExamining
\nthe issue from another angle, it may be noticed that except for the
\nland in question all the properties declared by the declarant as
\nforming part of the holding of the family were HUF properties. The
\nland in question was the individual self-acquired property of the
\npetitioner. It is this property that the declarant had indicated as
\nhis choice for acquisition by the Government towards the lands
\ndeclared excess vacant. There is nothing on record to show that the
\npetitioner was ever put to notice in respect of the same. In such a
\nsituation, when the lands held by the HUF have been retained and the
\nonly land held by the petitioner in her individual capacity which, as
\nthe record indicates, was stated to have been purchased from her
\nStreedhan has been declared as excess vacant without any notice to
\nher, immense prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Hence the
\nentire proceeding undertaken without issuance of notice to the
\npetitioner is null and void.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tIn
\nview of the above discussion, it is apparent that though the land in
\nquestion, namely, the land held by the petitioner in her individual
\ncapacity could have been taken into consideration for the purpose of
\ncomputing the total holding of  the family, the petitioner was
\nentitled to issuance of  notice as prescribed under Rule 5 as well as
\nservice of draft statement under section 8(3) of the Act. Besides the
\nnotifications under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act in respect of
\nthe property held by the petitioner, could not have been issued
\nindicating her husband to be the holder, more so when it was
\nspecifically indicated in Form No.1 filed under Section 6 of the Act
\nthat the property in question is an individual self-acquired property
\nof the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tIn
\nthe circumstances, the impugned order dated 14.11.1984 passed by the
\nCompetent Authority as well as the subsequent proceedings taken under
\nthe Act stand vitiated on account of non-compliance with the
\nmandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules and are, therefore,
\nrequired to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order passed
\nby the Urban Land Tribunal as well as the judgment and order passed
\nby the learned Single Judge  upholding the order of the Competent
\nAuthority are also required to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nis ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
21.\tThe
\nLetters Patent Appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(M.S.\n<\/p>\n
SHAH, J.)\t\t<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(HARSHA
\nDEVANI, J.)<\/p>\n
zgs\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Niranjan vs Competent on 18 March, 2009 Author: Mohit S. H.N.Devani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/116420\/2006 13\/ 13 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1164 of 2006 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6560 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-160594","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNiranjan vs Competent on 18 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Niranjan vs Competent on 18 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-23T08:28:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Niranjan vs Competent on 18 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-23T08:28:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":3656,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Niranjan vs Competent on 18 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-23T08:28:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Niranjan vs Competent on 18 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Niranjan vs Competent on 18 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Niranjan vs Competent on 18 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-23T08:28:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Niranjan vs Competent on 18 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-23T08:28:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2"},"wordCount":3656,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2","name":"Niranjan vs Competent on 18 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-23T08:28:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-vs-competent-on-18-march-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Niranjan vs Competent on 18 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160594","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=160594"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160594\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}