S. S. BYAS, J. - (1.) SHELTER, shelter, shelter is the cry of the dwellers of the cities. To provide land for the shelter to the millions of down-trodden people living in the cities on the pavement or beneath the trees, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976, was enacted. The intention of the Legislation was to prevent the construction on the urban land which is in the hands of few persons and to put check on speculation and profiteering.
(2.) UNDER S. 6 (1) of the Act, it was obligatory on the person holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limit at the time of commencement of the Act to file return. UNDER S. 6 (2) of the Act, a notice was issued to the present petition by the competent authority, on 30th June, 1976, as the petitioner failed to file the return. The competent Authority, prepared the draft statement and after examination, it was found that the petitioner held 1,490. 52 Sq. mets. of land at Jaipur, and 590. 44. Sq. Mets. of land at Bikaner. Thus, the petitioner held 2,080 Sq. mets, of land in all. The petitioner under the law was entitled to hold only upto 1,500 Sq. mets. of land. Thus, he was having 580. 96 Sq. mets. of land in excess of the ceiling limit. The petitioner submitted an application for the grant of exemption under S. 20 (1) (b) of the Act. The petitioner has submitted a copy of the stay-application and the informations supplied by him marked as (Arinexure-3 ). The petitioner also submitted (Annexure-4) application and prayed that he is having 590. 44 Sq. mets. of land in excess of the prescribed ceiling limits and the land should be exempted from ceiling. It was also submitted that without giving due hearing, the application for the exemption was rejected by the competent authority vide order (Annexure-5) dated 29th August, 1986. The petitioner has challenged the order refusing the grant of exemption. On behalf of respondents, reply was filed. It was submitted that after taking into consideration all the points including the constructed part, the competent authority, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is having 580. 96 sq. mets. of land in excess of the prescribed ceiling limits. It was also submitted that petitioner wanted to sale the land of Bikaner, and he prayed for grant of no objection certificate. In the said proceedings the petitioner agreed that the surplus land of Jaipur, will be surrendered and he should be granted NOC for the sale of the land situated at Bikaner. On behalf of the respondents (Annexure- Rl/3) copy of the proceedings dated 30th June, 1980, has been produced. It was also submitted that notification (Annexure-R2/3) was issued on 10th February, 1984, and the land measuring 580. 96 Sq. mets. was declared surplus. As far as declaration of surplus land is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties. The matter stands settled vide (Annexure-R 2/3 ). The petitioner himself has moved an application for the grant of exemption under S. 20 (1) (b) of the Act, in which he has prayed that the order dated 29th August, 1980, (Annexure-5) may be quashed. Of course, he has made an additional prayer that the order of the competent authority dated 31st August, 1982 may also be quashed.
(3.) THIS writ petition has been filed after 5 years of the passing of the order (Annexure-2 ). It will not be out of place here to mention that in fact, the petitioner admitted the validity and the legality of the order (Annexure-2) by implications. Vide order (Annexure-2) the surplus land was declared. The petitioner moved an application for the grant of exemption under Section 20 (I) (b) of the Act. When the application for the grant of exemption was rejected, he has tried to challenge the original order passed in the year 1982 after five years. The delay of 5 years is fatal and the petitioner cannot claim any relief for that part of relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly not argued about the vali dity of (Annexure-2) though prayed in the writ petition. Apart from that we have examined the validity and we are satisfied that there is no infirmity in the said order (Annexure-2) which was passed in August, 1982. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently challenged the order (Annexure-5) dated 29. 8. 1986, in fact, this is not an order but it is a communication given to the petitioner that his application for the grant of exemption has been rejected. The order (Annexure-R3/3, was produced by the respondents in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order (Annexure-R 3/3) is not a speaking order. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard and it is not in dispute. The dispute is only about the fact that the competent authority, has not considered the application under S. 20 (1) (b) of the Act, in the right earnest and his rejected the application without assigning any reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited before us the case of Manilal Hiralal Doshi Vs. The State of Gujarat (1) in which their Lordships held as under:- "declaration about land being surplus under S. 8 (1) and 8 (3) can be made only after this decision on application under S. 20 for exemption is taken. " Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited before us the case of Nand Kishore Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2 ). ;