Back
SUNITA AGARWAL, ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Legal Heirs Of Shivabhai Virabhai Prajapati – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sunita Agarwal, J.)
The instant Appeal has arisen out of the judgment and order dated 19.04.2014 passed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by the State challenging the order dated 20.2.1999 passed by the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal in Appeal No. Ahmedabad/5/1999 under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
2. The brief facts relevant to decide the matter at hands are that the land-in-question namely Survey No. 143/2 admeasuring 3339 sq.mtrs., situated at Village : Gota, Ahmedabad (Daskroi) was sold by the original land holder-Shivabhai Virabhai Prajapati vide sale deed dated 10.02.1976 in favour of one Devrajbhai Khunabhai Rabari, as the predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 2.1 to 2.7. It seems that in the proceedings conducted by the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short referred to as ‘the ULC Act’), the competent authority passed order dated 09.08.1990 under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act declaring 2339 sq.mtrs. of excess land from Survey No. 143/2, on the premise that the original owner could not produce any document like agreement to sell, sale deed etc. to sho
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State must establish the voluntary surrender of vacant land or forceable dispossession under the ULC Act. Failure to do so entitles the la....
The court held that statutory compliance under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act is mandatory for valid dispossession, emphasizing that mere vesting does not equate to possession.
It is incumbent upon the competent authority to be in actual possession of the property for substantiating its stand that the provisions of repeal Act would not be applicable.
Possession of land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act must be established lawfully; mere vesting does not equate to possession, especially post-repeal.
Failure to issue notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act to possessors renders dispossession unlawful and results in the abatement of proceedings under Section 4 of the Repealing Act.
plain language of sub-section (5) of Section 10 means and envisages a notice in writing in the form of an order to surrender or make over the possession to the State. Sub-Section (5) notice is not in....
The court ruled that actual physical possession must be established for the State to validly claim ownership under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and procedural requirements for n....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, and the validity of exemption applications under Section 21.
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
