Gujarat High Court
Judgename :R.C.MANKAD
LALITSHANKER THAKORBHAI DESAI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 1113 of 1987
Decided On : 11/10/1987
Constitution of India 1950 – Article 226 - Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 - Section 20 (1) - Claimed in respect - Exemption was claimed - State Government has by impugned order refused to grant exemption on following grounds namely land in question was needed by Government for public purpose (ii) petitioners had failed to establish undue hardship to holder and request made by petitioner Society was not in consonance with provisions of Act – Held, This Court is not sitting in appeal and it therefore cannot examine petitioners claim for exemption afresh on merits - Only question which this Court can consider is whether action of Government in refusing to grant exemption is illegal or arbitrary - Petitioners have not been able to establish that action of Government is illegal or arbitrary - Nor is any error apparent on face of record committed by Government in rejecting petitioners application for exemption - Court therefore do not see any reason to entertain than – Petition rejected
( 1 ) PETITIONERS have moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the order Annexure I dated 25/02/1987 rejecting their application for exemption under Sec. 20 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1 holds lands admeasuring 10 143 Sq-mtrs. bearing S. No. 140 of village Majura City Survey No. 722 and Final plot No. 59/1 of Town Planning Scheme-9. Out of these lands held by petitioner No. 1 exemption under Sec. 20 (1) of the Act was claimed in respect of 8361 Sq-mtrs. of lands after completing sale in favour of Dhaval Co-operative Housing Society petitioner No. 2 herein. The State Government has by the impugned order refused to grant exemption on the following grounds namely (i) the land in question was needed by the Government for public purpose; (ii) petitioners had failed to establish undue hardship to the holder; and (iii) the request made by petitioner No. 2-Society was not in consonance with the provisions of the Act.
( 3 ) THE State Government has issued guidelines which are at Annexure E to the petition for the purpose of granting exemption under Sec. 20 (1) of the Act. It is provided therein that if the land in respect of which exemption was claimed was needed by the Government exemption shall not be granted. Section 20 confers powers on the State Government to grant exemption and sub-sec. (1) thereof which is relevant for our purpose reads as follows:" 20 Notwithstanding anything contained in any of the foregoing provisions of this Chapter- (A) Where any person holds vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit and the State Government is satisfied either on its own motion or otherwise that having regard to the location of such land the purpose for which such land is being or is proposed to be used and such other relevant factors as the circumstances of the case may require it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do that Government may by order exempt subject to such conditions if any as may be specified in the order such vacant land from the provisions of this Chapter; (B) Where any person holds vacant land in excess of the Ceiling limit and the State Government either on its own motion or otherwise is satisfied that the application of the provisions of this Chapter would cause judge hardship to such person that government may by order exempt subject to such conditions if any as may be specified in the order such vacant land firm the provisions of this Chapter:provided that to order under this clause shall be made unless the reasons for doing as are recorded in writing. "it is clear from clause (a) of Sec. 20 (1) that before granting exemption the Government has to be satisfied that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest to grant exemption Under clause (b) of the said sub-section in order to grant exemption Government has to be satisfied that the provisions of Chapter III of the Act would cause undue hardship to the holder of the vacant land. The guidelines which are issued by the Government are only for the purpose of deciding the application for exemption made under Sec. 20 of the Act. Unless the holder of the vacant land brings case within four corners of the aforesaid provision regarding exemption he is not entitled to exemption. So far as clause (a) of Sec. 20 (1) is concerned what is paramount is public interest and so far as clause (b) is concerned it is undue hardship. It is in the context of clause (a) that the Government has in its guidelines laid down that if the land is needed by Government then exemption should not be granted. If the land is needed by the Government for its own or public purpose it could not be in the public interest to grant exemption.
( 4 ) IN the instant case it is stated in the impugned order that the land is needed by Government for public purpose. It has been further found that no undue hardship is likely to be cause
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.