Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.N.Divecha
JAYANTILAL BACHUBHAI VADIWALA - Appellant
Versus
COMPETENT AUTHORITY,u.L.C.,surat - Respondent
S.C.A. 1982 of 1987
Decided On : 02/10/1994
The Tribunal exercising the appellate powers under section -33 of the Act has to follow the procedure as laid down in Section -12(5) of the Act, there is no escape from the conclusion that the -procedure prescribed in the relevant provisions contained in the Code -with respect to the appellate jurisdiction of the appellate Court -thereunder will govern the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal -while exercising the appellate-powers inter alia under Section 33 -of the Act. It cannot be gainsaid that Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code -provides for production of additional evidence at the appellate stage. -The procedure for production of additional evidence at the appellate -stage will have to be followed by the Tribunal with respect to the -appellate powers under Section 33 of the Act.
Therefore it was incumbent on the part of the Tribunal -to have decided the fate of an attempt to produce additional evidence -at the appellate stage before undertaking the hearing of the appeals -of the petitioners on the basis of materials before the Competent -Authority (respondent No. 1 herein). Respondent No. 2 herein could -not have overlooked the documents sought to be produced in appeal -unless it has by its order in that regard rejected acceptance of additional -evidence at the appellate stage.
( 1 ) ALL these four petitions are directed against the common order passed by the Competent Authority at Surat (respondent No. 1 herein) on 31st march 1983 in Cases Nos. 93, 83, 25 and 26 all of 1982 as affirmed in appeal by the common order passed by the Additional Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 2 herein) on 11th February 1986 in Appeal Nos. Surat-94, 95, 96 and 97 all of 1983. Since the cases of all these petitioners were consolidated both by respondent No. 1 and in appeal by respondent No. 2 and since common questions of fact and law are found arising in all these petitions, I have thought it fit to dispose them of by this common judgment of mine.
( 2 ) IT appears that each petitioner filed his respective statement in the prescribed form under Sec. 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) with respect to the properties held by him within the urban agglomeration of Surat as on 17th February 1976. It may be mentioned at this stage that the petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos. 1982, 1983 and 1984 all of 1987 are brothers. They claimed their shares in some common properties. It appears that these three brothers along with the petitioner of Special Civil application No. 2523 of 1984 (the fourth petition for convenience) had purchased one property bearing survey No. 34/c admeasuring 3541 square metres situated at ved in Surat (the disputed property for convenience ). They claimed that the three brothers on the one hand and the petitioner of the fourth petition on the other had one-half share each therein. The one-half share therein belonging to the three brothers was held in equal share by them. In that view of the matter, each of the three brothers claimed his one-sixth share in the disputed property. It appears that some of the properties declared by each of the three brothers were constructed properties as on 17th February 1976, the appointed day for the purposes of the act. Respondent No. 1 thereupon prepared a draft statement in each case and caused it to be served to each of the four petitioners in all these four petitions in accordance with the relevant provisions contained in Sec. 8 of the Act. It appears that each petitioner filed his objections thereto. Thereupon the cases of all these four petitioners came to be registered as Case Nos. 93, 83, 25 and 26 all of 1982. After hearing the parties, by his common order passed on 31st March 1983 in the aforesaid four cases, respondent No. 1 declared the holding of each petitioner to be in excess of the ceiling limit to the extent specified therein. Its copy is at annexure-A to each petition. That aggrieved each petitioner. Each one thereupon carried the matter in appeal before respondent No. 2. All their appeals came to be registered as Appeal Nos. 94, 95, 96 and 97 all of 1983. By his common order passed on 11th February 1986 in the aforesaid four appeals, respondent No. 2 partly accepted the appeal to the extent of the land appurtenant to the disputed property. Rest of the order passed by the Competent Authority came to be affirmed. A copy of the aforesaid common appeallate order is at Annexure-B to each petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon moved this Court by means of their respective petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-A to each petition as substantially affirmed in appeal by the impugned appellate order at Annexure-B to each petition.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to Shri Shelat for the petitioners, the authorities below have seriously erred in treating all these petitioners to be an association of persons qua the disputed property. Shri Shelat for the petitioners has further urged that the constructed properties have also been included in the holding of the petitioners in each case contrary to the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Meera Gupta v. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1992 SC
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
