2005 Supreme(Guj) 555

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :Akil Kureshi
INDEQUIP ENGINEERING LTD. - Appellant
Versus
URBAN LAND TRIBUNAL AND EX-OFFICIO ADDITIONAL CHIEF - Respondent
Special Civil Application 7278 of 1992
Decided On : 08/24/2005

Headnote:

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Sections 8 (1) and 10 (3) – Challenging the order passed by the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Urban Land ceiling as confirmed by an order passed by Urban Land Tribunal in Appeal – It appears that during the pendency of the petition in certain civil suits filed by the respondent no. 3-Bank of India, order came to be passed by the Civil Court appointing the receiver to dispose of the properties of the petitioner No. 1-Company at the instance of the respondent No. 3-Bank. The application being Civil Application came to be filed by the Receiver seeking to be joined as petitioner No. 2 in the present petition – In the Civil Application, it was stated that ends of justice would be served if he is joined as co-petitioner as it is his duty to ensure that the properties are disposed of as expeditiously as possible – While disposing of this application being Civil Application single Judge of this Court allowed the applicant therein to be joined as petitioner No. 2 in the main petition. While allowing application, Court however, observed that application is allowed without considering the rights of parties and without considering the fact as to who is in possession of the land in question. The petitioner No. 2 as a Receiver appointed by the Court to dispose of the properties of the petitioner No. 1-Company, is thus joined in the present petition in the above-mentioned circumstances – Seeking to take possession of the land in question it is the case of the State Government that ultimately the possession was taken on 6-10-1992 in presence of Panchas – Held, Since tproceedings have not been finalised, either would return the application, the draft declaration should be taken up and declaration should be finalised, and thereafter, the option can be exercised to purchase the land and building or to permit the sale of the land to the third parties. In this situation, the State appears to have exercised the first option and purchased the property. Therefore, we find that there is no illegality in the exercise of the option by the State to purchase the property sought to be sold by the owner. The respondent, being only an intending purchaser cannot complain that until the draft proceedings have been finalised and the declaration under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 10, has been published, the State cannot exercise the option to purchase the property. It is next contended that since the land proposed to be sold is within the ceiling limit, no permission under Sec. 27 (1), is needed. There is no substance in the contention on the statement made by the person she was admittedly in possession of more than the ceiling area. So, permission under Sec. 27 (1), is mandatory and she had rightly filed the application – It is not possible for this Court to comment on the nature of the order passed by the authority under Sec. 27 of the said Act. It is not the case of the State Government that such orders were ever sought to be withdrawn. It is therefore, not possible or proper on my part to comment on nature of these orders. Suffice to say that restriction on transfer of excess vacant land under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 5 is not subject to the provisions of Sec. 27 of the said Act. It is therefore, not possible to accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that having granted the permission under Sec. 27, it was not open for the State government, thereafter, to process further declaration of petitioner No. 1 under sec. 6 of the Act and to declare any part of the land as excess vacant land – It is true that there are some observations made by the learned Judge concerning the application of Sec. 27 and sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 5 of the said act. However, in view of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kanubhai Sankalchand Patel (Heir of Decd. Sankalchand manilal Mukhi) v. Nayankunj Co-op. Housing Soc. Ltd. and Ors. (supra) and in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Surendra Kumar and in view of my discussions hereinabove, I am unable to follow the path adopted by the learned single Judge of Calcutta High Court – Petition rejected. (Paras 24, 25 and 26)