SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Guj) 175

A.P.RAVANI, J.U.MEHTA
HIMATLAL K. PAREKH – Appellant
Versus
COMPETENT AUTHORITY and DEPUTY COLLECTOR (U. L. C. ) RAJKOT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: J.R.NANAVATI, S.B.TRIVEDI

A. P. RAVANI, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant is a holder of vacant land situated within the urban agglomeration area of Rajkot. The Competent officer by order dated 7/12/1983 declared that out of the total land holding of the petitioner land admeasuring 2015. 30 sqm. is surfs. Against the aforesaid order the appellant preferred appeal under Sec. 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 before the Urban Land Tribunal. The appeal has been rejected vide order dated 7/09/1987 The appellate challenged the legality and validate of the order passed by the urban Laud Tribunal by filing Special Civil Application No. 1009 of 1988 The petition came up for bearing before the learned single Judge cores G. T. Nanavati J of this High Court who has summarily rejected the petition as per his order dated Miracle 1 1988 It is against this order that the present Letters Patent Areas is filed.

( 2 ) THE Urban Land Tribunal at ally rate exercises quasi judicial powers if not judicial power while deciding appeal under sec. 33 of the Urban L3nd (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 Whatever label be attached to the petitions challenging the legality and validity of the orders that may be passed by the Ur





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top