NAGINDAS KESHAVLAL MEHTA Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even in an appeal filed by a land-holder will it or will it not be open to the Appellate Authority exercising powers under Sec. 33(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 thereinafter referred to as the Act) to remand a matter to the Competent Authority for deciding the same in accordance with law ? Petitioners contend phrase as it deems fit will not take within its sweep the power to remand. The contention needs to be examined in the background of the relevant statutory provisions and the facts that follows.

(2.) In all these petitions common questions of law and facts arise. The petitioners are holders of vacant land situated within the urban agglomeration area of Rajkot to which the provisions of the Act are applicable.

(3.) The petitioners had filled in forms under Sec. 6 of the Act. In response to the notice served together with the draft statement as provided under Sec 8(3) of the Act they submitted objections against the draft statement. Their forms were decided by the competent authority. However it appears that all the objections submitted by the petitioners were not accepted by the competent authority. After following the necessary procedure the competent authority passed final order as provided under Sec. 9 of the Act. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the order passed by the competent authority and therefore they preferred appeal under Sec. 33 of the Act before the appellate authority. The appellate authorities after hearing the parties set aside the entire judgment and order passed by the competent authority and ordered to remand the matter to the competent authority for deciding the case in accordance with law. In each of the petitions the order passed by the appellate authority is challenged by the petitioners by invoking the provisions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.