A.P.RAVANI, J. - (1.)These two petitions arise out of the proceedings and orders passed under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Facts of the petitions and the questions involved are almost identical and hence at the request of and by the consent of the parties both the matters are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.)An intimation under Section 26 of the Act dated October 21 1981 (produced at Annexure A to both the petitions) was given to the petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 stating that the land held by them and sought to be transferred was not required by the Government. In the petition the letter is described as order. Now at the stage of hearing it is sought to be described as an intimation. Thereafter on June 6 1983 the Government passed an order informing the petitioners that the Government had decided to take up the proceedings in revision under Section 34 of the Act and hence the petitioners were directed to maintain status quo and were further informed that the date of hearing and time would be intimated later on. Thereafter a notice dated October 10 1983 (Annexure C to the petition) has been served upon the petitioners calling upon them on November 10 1983 to show cause against the action to be taken under Section 34 of the Act. It is not clear from the petition as to what happened on November 10 1983 Probably the petitioners might have sought adjournment. On November 22 1983 these two petitions have been filed in this High Court praying that the show-cause notice Annexure C issued by the Government be declared illegal and void and the same be quashed and set aside and the Government be restrained from taking further proceedings. On November 23 1983 both the petitions have been admitted and by way of interim order further proceedings before the Government have been stayed. (It may be noted that the petitioners are not permitted by this Court to alter the status quo with respect to the land. The only order passed by this Court is to the effect that further proceedings in pursuance of the motion should not be taken.)
(3.)Now the facts in brief. One Atmaram Mohanbhai Patel and Shankarbhai Mohanbhai Patel owned land Survey No. 19611 of village Memnagar admeasuring 1 acre and 15 gunthas i.e. 5464 sq.mts. The land is situated within Ahmedabad Urban Agglomeration Area. Said Atmaram died on Decemb-er 20 1965 It is stated that by entry No. 405 507 dated April 14 1966 the names of petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 were entered as the heirs of deceased Atmaram in the revenue records. The petitioners case is that partition in respect of this land took place between the petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 on the one hand and Shankarlal Mohanlal on the other hand. As per the partition land admeasuring 2732 sq. mt. has fallen to the share of petitioners Nos. 1 to 4. The petitioners further case is that a partition inter se between the petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 took place with respect to the land admeasuring 2732 sq. mt. which had fallen to their share. As far as these petitions are concerned. Shankarbhai Mohanlal Patel does not figure in the picture and the land occupied and/or held by him is not the subject of these petitions. The relevant entry in the record of rights regarding the partition between petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 has been made on August 14 1981 As stated in para 5 of both the petitions the petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 decided to sell the land admeasuring 942.22 sq. mts. to petitioner No. 5 and also decided to sell other 942.22 sq. mts. of land to petitioner No. 6. (There appears to be some mistake of area agreed to be sold since the total does not tally with the total area covered by Annesure A to both the petitions.) The petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 gave a notice in writing as required under the provisions of Section 26 (1) of the Act and informed the competent authority under the Act regarding the proposed sale. The competent authority under the Act by order dated October 21 1981 (Annexure A) informed petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 individually by separate letters to the effect that the Government did not wish to exercise its right to purchase the land mentioned therein. The description of the land mentioned in each of the order addressed to petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 individually is as follows: JUDGEMENT_399_GLH0_1986.htm