SURYAPUR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-1988-12-12
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on December 28,1988

Surayapur Co.Op. Housing Society Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
State of Gujarat and Another Respondents




JUDGEMENT

A.P.RAVANI - (1.)The petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society. It prays that the order dated 31/05/1988 (Annexure C to the petition) passed by the Urban Land Tribunal (Appellate Authority) be quashed and set aside and direction may be given to the State Government to grant the application for exemption to the land in question under Sec. 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the State Government be further directed to resell the land to the petitioner-Society after fixing upset price under the provisions of Sec. 23 of the Act. 2 It is an undisputed position that the land in question of Survey No. 50/1 part 4811 and 48/2 of village Piplod taluka Choriasi district Surat admeasures 31085 sq. metres is situated within the urban agglomeration area of Surat City. It is the case of the petitioner that the land originally belonged to a trust and the managing trustee of the trust had sold the land to Hindu Undivided Family of one Shri Vallabhbhai Purshottambhai of which the Karta Was Shri Narottambhai Vallabhbhai. The petitioner has purchased the 1and in public auction held by the Special Recovery Officer for consideration of Rs. 4 51 0 The auction was held for realisation of the dues of a co-operative society from the aforesaid land-holder. There appears to be some discrepancy as regards the narration of the facts which led to the holding of auction by the Special Recovery Officer. The discrepancy in the narration of the facts becomes apparent if one reads application under Sec. 20 of the Act dated 27/08/1988 (Annex. D) submitted by the petitioner-Society to the Government. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to this discrepancy and he has tried to show that there is a systematic device to circumbent the provisions of the Act and it is not a straight transaction as it is sought to be made out. However for the purpose of deciding this petition it is not necessary for me to go into the details as regards the manner in which the debt was created and the decree was passed and ultimately the land in question has been put to action by the Special Recovery Officer.
(2.)Admittedly on the date of commencement of the Act i. e 17/02/1976 the petitioner-Society had no interest whatsoever in the land in question. As disclosed in the petition the petitioner-Society had acquired interest in the land only pursuant to the auction held by the Special Recovery Officer on 7/04/1981 The mutation entry in the revenue record has been mate on 31/05/1981 Thus as per the case of the petitioner-Society itself it was neither in possession of the land nor it had any interest whatsoever in the land on 17/02/1976 According to the petitioner-Society it has acquired interest in the land some time in the month of April 1981
(3.)In respect of the land in question different co-owners of the members of the H. U. F. to which the land belonged had filled in forms under Sec. 6 of the Act. The decision given by the competent authority in respect of the forms filled in by the respective co-owners was challenged before the Urban Land Tribunal and Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has remanded the matter to the Competent Authority for deciding the same in accordance with law
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.