DAHYABHAI M PATEL Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ADDL COLLECTOR UNIT NO 2 VADODARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. M. I Hawa waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. At the request and by consent of the parties the matter is ordered to be heard today.

(2.) The petitioner holds vacant land in Urban Agglomeration area of Vadodara. Against the order passed by the Competent Authority declaring that the petitioner holds certain area of land in excess of the ceiling limit the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and hence an application for condonation of delay was also filed. The Appellate Tribunal has rejected the appeal on the ground that appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation these also held that the appeal was filed after the publication of Notification under sec. 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (herein after referred to as `the Act) and therefore the appeal is not maintainable.

(3.) As far as the condonation of delay is concerned the facts may be examined. The Competent Authority passed the order on 17/02/1984 and held that an area of 8490 Sq. Mts. of land was in excess of the ceiling limit. According to the petitioner he came to know about the same only when the Notification dated 11/11/1984 under sec. 10(5) of the Act was served upon him. Thereafter on 23/01/1985 the petitioner filed the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Thus the appeal is filed after a period of about 10 months. The Tribunal held that a copy of the order passed by the Competent Authority was collected by the advocate of the petitioner on 20/02/1984 The Appellate Tribunal observed that it can be safely presumed that his advocate must have conveyed the order orally to the appellant. It is not understood as to on what basis the Tribunal thought it fit to raise such presumption. Even if there be any such presumption of facts the same stands rebuted when the petitioner states that the impugned order passed by the Competent Authority was never communicated to him. In this connection the Tribunal ought to have followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another v. Katiji and Others reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court at page 1353. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as follows: