PATEL GORDHAN KADVABHAI Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Not the integrated whole of the person but different disintegrated component parts of the person be recognised as separate entity and he served with a show-cause notice and be afforded an opportunity of being heard. Such is the plea raised by the petitioners who are different component parts of an association of individuals a person. Can such a plea be upheld ?

(2.) The petitioners along with respondent No. 3 purchased a piece of vacant land situated within the Urban agglomeration area of Rajkot. The land admeasured about 13861 sq. m. It appears that the land was purchased some time in the year 1966 by a registered sale deed executed in favour of petitioners and respondent No. 3. After the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 came into force respondent No. 3 filled in form under the provisions of Sec. 6(1) of the Act. In the form it was declared that the form was filled in on behalf of himself and on behalf of the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case it was treated by the Competent Authority that the form was filled in by an association of individuals and respondent No. 3 throughout the proceedings represented the association of individuals. After serving the draft statement under Sec. 8(3) upon respondent No. 3 and after considering the objections and after affording an opportunity of being heard the Competent Authority came to the conclusion that the land was purchased jointly by respondent No. 3 and all these petitioners; that there were no defined shares in respect of each of the owners. Therefore it was treated as an association of individuals and it was treated as one person. On this basis it was held that such an association of individuals was entitled to retain one ceiling unit i. e. 1500 sq. m. of land. Rest of the land i. e. 12361 sq. m. was declared as surplus. The aforesaid order was passed by the Competent Authority on 26/06/1984 and the same is produced at annexure-A to the petition. The association of individuals as such did not prefer appeal. Respondent No. 3 who had filled in the form on behalf of the association of individuals also did not join in filing the appeal.

(3.) The petitioners in their individual capacity and not as association of individuals filed appeal against the order passed by the Competent Authority. The appeal has been rejected by the Urban Land Tribunal as per its order dated 25/11/1986 The appellate Tribunal held that the land was in residential zone and the same cannot be treated as agricultural land; that the land was purchased by an association of individuals and it was not necessary that all the appellants should have been served with a show-cause notice and should have been given an opportunity of being heard by the Competent Authority. The contention of the petitioners that each one of them should have been given one unit has not been accepted by the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners have preferred this petition challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.