Back
1996 Supreme(Guj) 265
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.N.Divecha
Vira Bhagat Co.Op.HSG Society Limited - Appellant
Versus
Secretary,revenue Dept. - Respondent
S.C.A. 5851 of 1995
Decided On : 06/26/1996
Headnote:Tenancy & Land Laws - Ceiling - Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sec. 20(1) & (2) - Cancellation of exemption validity - Petitioner was granted exemption under Sec. 20(1) with respect to disputed land on certain terms and conditions - Some of the conditions were mandatory and some of them were directory in nature - Order of cancellation of exemption was made for non-furnishing the names and addresses of the member of which 50 percent persons should be from SC/ST/NT/Society or Govt-servants with in 3 months from date of exemption order as required under one of the conditions - Held, condition was apprently directory which means that petitioner could furnish the required information within reasonable time - Non-compliance with such condition within stipuleted time-limit should not have resulted in cancellation of the exemption order - Further petitioner has applied for extension of time-limit for complying with necessary condition attached to the order of exemption - Prayer is reasonable and necessary extension of time deserves is be granted - Contention on behalf of state that in view of Supreme Court binding decision in case of S. Vasudeva vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 923 - It was not possible to entertain review petition is also devoid of any force because said ruling has been overruled by recent ruling of Supreme Court in T. R. Thandur vs. Union of India & Ors., JT 1996 (4) SC 14. The petitioner was granted exemption under Sec. 20(1) of the Act with respect to the disputed land by the order passed on 18th April 1992 on certain terms and conditions. It appears that the petitioner could not produce the names and the addresses of the allotees together with their affidavits as required by one of the conditions attached to the order at Annexure-A to this petition. Thereupon a show-cause notice came to be issued on 23rd July 1992, under Sec. 20(2) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the permission granted by the order at Annexure-A to this petition should not be cancelled. The petitioner thereafter moved the State Government for extension of the time-limit by its application of 11th February 1993. It appears not to have filed any reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice under sec. 20(2) of the Act. Thereupon by the order passed by and on behalf of the State Government on 22nd November 1993, it cancelled the exemption granted by the order at Annexure-A to this petition.
[Para 2]That brings Court as to the nature of the condition regarding the requirement to furnish the names and the addresses of the members of the petitioner-society within 3 months from the date of the order at Annexure-A to this petition coupled with the condition that minumum 50% members should belong to the scheduled caste, the scheduled tribe, Government servants or the nomadic tribe.[Para 4]There is no escape from the conclusion that the condition regarding furnishing the names and addresses of the members of the petitioner-society stipulating that 50% persons should be from the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, the nomadic tribe or government servants should be held to be directory and not mandatory. It would mean that the petitioner could furnish the required information within a reasonable time and not within the stipulated time-limit. Non-compliance with such directory condition should not have resulted in cancellation of the exemption order at Annexure-A to this petition.[Para 4]The petitioner however wants extension of the time-limit for complying with the necessary conditions attached to the order of exemption at Annexure-A to this petition. I think its prayer is quite reasonable and the necessary extension of time deserves to be granted to it for the purpose. It is however clarified that such grant of extension of time would not preclude the State Government from cancelling the order at Annexure-A to this petition under Sec. 20(2) of the Act if any of the mandatory conditions are not complied with or any of the directory conditions are not complied with or any of the directory conditions are not complied with within reasonable time. However, the impugned order at Annexure-D to this petition cannot be sustained in law as the exemption granted by the order at Annexure-A to this petition is cancelled thereby on the ground of breach of a directory condition for which suitable extension could have been granted.[Para 6]It is stated on behalf of the State Government that the review application made by the petitioner could not be considered in view of the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Vasudeva vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in AIR 1994 SC 923. The aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court has been overruled by the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of T.R. Thandur vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in JT 1996 (4) SC 14. In that view of the matter, there is no impediment against grant of extension of time to the petitioner for complying with the conditions attached to the exemption order at Annexure-A to this petition.
[Para 7]
( 1 ) THE order passed by and on behalf of the State Government on 22nd november 1993 is under challenge in this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. By its impugned order, the State Government has cancelled the exemption granted under Sec. 20 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) by the order passed on 18th April, 1992 with respect to one parcel of land bearing survey No. 54/2 in Town lanning Scheme No. 37 and bearing Final Plot no. 383 admeasuring 10560 square meters situated at Dani Limda within the urban agglomeration of Ahmedabad (the disputed land for convenience ).
( 2 ) IT is not necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to this petition. It may be sufficient to note that the petitioner was granted exemption under Sec. 20 (1) of the Act with respect to the disputed land by the order passed on 18th April 1992 on certain terms and conditions. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. One condition required the petitioner to get the sale deed with respect to the disputed land executed within 9 months from its date. Another condition required the petitioner to submit within 3 months from the date of its order names and addresses of the allottees together with their affidavits showing that each allottee was to be given only 200 square meters of plot from the disputed land. Yet another condition required the petitioner to obtain what is popularly known as the N. A permission. It appears that the petitioner could not produce the names and the addresses of the allotees together with their affidavits as required by one of the conditions attached to the order at Annexure-A to this petition. Thereupon a show-cause notice came to be issued on 23rd July 1992 under Sec. 20 (2) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the permission granted by the order at annexure-A to this petition should not be cancelled. It appears that in the meantime the petitioner had already taken steps for getting the N. A. permission obtained by the original owners of the disputed land. By the order passed on 16th January 1993, the City Deputy collector at Ahmedabad granted the N. A. permission. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. The petitioner thereafter moved the State Government for extension of the time-limit by its application of llth February 1993. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. It appears not to have filed any reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice under sec. 20 (2) of the Act. Thereupon by the order passed by and on behalf of the State government on 22nd November 1993, it cancelled the exemption granted by the order at Annexure-A to this petition. Its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. The petitioner thereupon moved the Government by addressing one representation to the Revenue minister of the State Government on 1st December 1993 for review, of the order at annexure-D to this petition. A copy of such representation is at Annexure-E to this petition. It appears that in the meantime the petitioner had moved the Municipal corporation of Ahmedabad for approval of the plans for construction and for grant of the necessary building permission. By the order passed on 24th April 1993, the local authority granted such building permission on certain terms and conditions. Its copy is at annexure-F to this petition. It appears that pursuant thereto certain construction in the disputed land has already been made and certain residential units have come up thereon. Learned Counsel Shri Shah for the petitioner states that some constructed residential units have been allotted to certain members and they have started residing therein. It appears that the petitioners representation for review of the order at Annexure-D to this petition was not considered. The petitioner has therefore, moved this court under Art. 226 of the constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexurc-D to this petition.
( 3 ) THE
