N.B. PATEL, P.R. GOKULAKRISHNAN

(1.) This is a typical case where legality and validity of the orders passed by the authorities under the Land Ceiling Act declaring the plots of the lands in excess are challenged by various proceedings in order to scuttle the acquisition of excess lauds for public purposes.

(2.) Both these Letters Patent Appeals arise out of a common order passed in Special Civil Application No. 6068 of 1988 and Special Civil Application No. 6069 of 1988. In both these Letters Patent Appeals Mr. Vin appears for the appellants Mr. Antani appears for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Pujara appears for respondents Nos. 3 4 and 5. The learned Counsels appearing for the respondents got notice and say that the matters be heard and decided finally. Mr. Vin is agreeable in taking up these appeals for final hearing today and therefore the arguments were heard.

(3.) Letters Patent Appeal No. 111 of 1989 is filed by the alleged irrevocable power of attorney-holder of the original land-holders i.e. respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 111 of 1989. Letters Patent Appeal No. 112 of 1989 is filed by the purchasers of the land as late as in 23/04/1986

(4.) The short facts of these cases necessary for the purpose of disposing of these two Letters Patent Anneals are that there were four pieces of land bearing Survey Nos. 300/1. 310/2 313 and 439/1 situate at village Vijalpur. The total area of these survey numbers is I acre and 26 gunthas i.e. 7986 sq. yards equivalent to 6677 sq. mts. These lands stood initially in the name of one Babaji Manaji. After his death his wife Laxmiben his daughter Punjiben and his another daughter Ujaben got the same by succession. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Acts 1976 hereafter referred to as the U.L.C. Act) came into force on 17/02/1976 The heirs of Babaji Manaji filed a form duly filed in under Sec. 6(1) of the U.L.C. Act respect of these lands a scheme under the Town Planning Act also came into force. That was Town Planning scheme No. 5. In that Town Planning Scheme these lands were reconstituted and final Plot No. 73 was given to Survey No. 300/1; final Plot No. 88 was given to Survey No. 310/2; final Plot No 93 was given to Survey No. 313/3 and final Plot No. 204 was given to Survey No. 439/1. Under the Town Planning Scheme the area of these lands was reduced and these survey numbers which originally admeasured 6677 sq. mts. came to be reduced to 4704 sq.mts.

(5.) The authority authorised under Sec. 6 of the U.L.C. Act disposed of the form filled in by the land-holders by an order dated 8/07/1982 which is Annexure A to the Special Civil Application. By this order dated 8/07/1982 the land-holders who are three in number as stated above got three units admeasuring 1000 sq.mts. each and after leaving these 1000 sq. mts. to each of these land-holders 1704 sq mts. were declared excess. Since the land-holders desired that this excess land may be taken from Plot No. 204 which is original Survey No. 439/1 the authority allowed the same. Subsequent to this order passed by the competent authority an appeal was filed under Sec. 33 of the U.L C. Act. That appeal come to be disposed of on 12/09/1984 The State Government has also filed a cross-appeal against the order of the competent authority. The appellate authority remanded the appeal filed by the land-holders and disposed of the appeal filed by the State Government by stating that inasmuch as the appeal filed by the land-holders has been remanded nothing survives in the appeal filed by the State Government in the meanwhile the State Government has issued notice under Sec. 34 of the U.L.C. Act requiring the land-holders to show cause as to why the order passed by the competent authority should not be revised. The said notice was not invoked and the same came to be closed on 9/05/1984 by another order dated 27/06/1984

(6.) On 6/04/1981 the heirs of Babaji Manaji i.e. three ladies entered Into an agreement of sale with one Mrs. Parindeviben Prafulchandra Dave and Dinkerbhai Ravishanker Dave for the sate of Plot No. 88 for Rs. 57 900 There was also another agreement by these three ladies dated 6/04/1981 in favour of Dr. Kumkum J. Gandhi sod Dr. Kilbilben J. Gandhi for consideration of Rs. 65 450 in respect of Plot No. 93. In each of these transactions the heirs of Babaji have received Rs. 5 0 each as earnest money.

(7.) On remand by the appellate authority is respect of the appeal filed by the land-holders the competent authority passed another order dated 30/09/1985 which is Annexure B to the Special Civil Application. By this order the competent authority took each plot and declared surplus i. e 416 sq. mts. an excess in Plot No. 73 239 sq. mts. as excess in Plot No. 88 267 sq mts. as excess in Plot No. 93 and 2815.15 sq. mts. at excess in Plot No. 204. We find that on 24/04/1986 two sale-deeds in favour of the agreement-holders were executed. We also find that in Respect of these lands which were originally agricultural lands a permission was sought from the Collector under Sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act for selling these lands. After all these things one Mr. P. N. Chaudhri who was the power of attorney- holder of these three ladies who are the original owners filed an appeal against the order Annexure B The appellate authority on this appeal declared Plots Nos. 88 and 93 and also part of the Plot No. 204 as excess land. It is pertinent to not: that these: Plots Nos. 88 and 93 are the subject-matter of the sale-deeds dated 23/04/1986 It is against this order passed by the appellate authority declaring Plots Nos. 88 and 93 and part of Plot No. 204 as excess land Special Civil Applications Nos. 6068 of 1988 and 6069 of 1988 came to be filed on these Special Civil Applications the learned single Judge has passed order and the same is the subject-matter in these Letters Patent Appeals.

(8.) As far as Letters Patent Appeal No. 112 of 1989 is concerned the same is filed by the purchasers of certain lands which have been declared as excess. The learned single Judge of this Court has correctly held that these persons who have acquired interest in the property subsequent to the coming into force of the U.L.C. Act have no locus standi to question the orders passed by the competent authority and the appellate authority constituted under the U L.C. Act. Hence we are of the view that such observations made by the learned single Judge in respect of the Special Civil Application filed by these petitioners are correct and as such Letters Patent Appeal No. 112 of 1989 deserves to be dismissed.

(9.) As far as Letters Patent Appeal No. 111 of 1989 is concerned the same is filed by the alleged irrevocable power of attorney-holder of the original owners.

(10) (10.) Mr. Vin learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in both these Letters Patent Appeals strenuously contended that the order of the competent authority cannot be sustained. In fact it is clear from the arguments and the averments in the Special Civil Application that the petitioner in Special Civil Application and the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal is questioning the order of the appellant authority passed under the U.L.C. Act declaring certain plots of land as excess land. The purchasers after the Act coming into force through an irrevocable power of attorney-holder of the original owners of the lands make grievance regarding the declaration of the lands sold to the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 112 of 1989. The order passed by the appellate authority which is at Annexure G clearly makes out as to why such adjustment and declaration were made. It is interesting to note that the original owners who are respondents Nos. 3 4 and 5 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 111 of 1989 have no faith in the power of attorney-holder and are represented by Mr. Pujara learned Counsel appearing for them. It in the say of the learned Counsel appearing for these respondents to they do not accept the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 111 of 1989 as irrevocable power of attorney-holder and he has absolutely no right to question the declaration made in appeal by any authority constituted under the U.L C. Act. There seems to be change of the power of attorney of the land-holders and inter se quarrel is going on between the present power of attorney-holder and the previous power of attorney-holder of these land owners. Such disputes as correctly observed by the learned single Judge cannot be agitated in the writ proceedings filed before this Court. It is surprising that instead of the real owners agitating the order passed by the appellate authority the alleged irrevocable power of attorney-holder agitates the correctness of the order passed by the appellate authority. Mr. Antani learned Counsel who appears for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 reiterates the order passed by the competent authority and subsequently by the appellate authority and states that there is substantially nothing illegal or against the provisions of the Act in the order passed by the appellate authority. The authorities constituted under the U.L.C. Act which are of quasi judicial nature have correctly applied their mind and have declared the excess laud in respect of the plot numbers referred to above. As such the learned Counsel submits that this Court cannot Interfere and in any event this Letters Patent Appeal cannot be maintained.

(11.) Mr. Pujara learned Counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 111 of 1989 also states that the challenge to the order at Annexure G to the Special Civil Application is nothing but questioning the order passed by the appellate authority Constituted under the Act which is a quasi judicial authority and the order passed by the learned single Judge against that order cannot be the subject-matter of the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. No doubt Mr. Vin learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the order passed by the appellate authority under Sec. 33 of the U.L.C. Act is an administrative order and as such writ proceedings have been correctly filed under. 226 of the Constitution and if that is so Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. From the facts of the case and the nature of relief claimed it is for us to decide that under what Article the writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked. The provisions of U.L.C. Act make it clear the hierarchy of authorities who have to decide the question as to the excess land. Such a decision has to be arrived after proper appreciation of the contentions raised and after hearing the parties. It is needless to say that the powers exercised by these authorities are of quasi judicial nature and that power they derive from Act itself.

(12.) The decision cited by Mr. Vin reported in 1981 GLR 239 (JETHA KANA V. MANAGING OFFICER JUNAGADH) is a case that arises in respect of an order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner who did it under his revisional authority. In those circumstances and on the facts of that case the Bench of our High Court has held In fact there was no lis between the parties. Therefore within the meaning of Clause is of the Letters Patent it cannot be held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner exercised revisional jurisdiction of a quasi Judicial character. Therefore the writ petitions which are filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution were original petitions and since they were original proceedings decided by the single Judge an appeal against his order is competent under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.

(13.) From the facts we have discussed above and from the provisions of the U L.C. Act it is clear that the writ proceedings entertained by this Court cannot be considered as original proceedings of this Court decided by the learned single Judge. It is clear from the provisions of the U.L.C. Act that orders passed by the authorities concerned duly declaring the excess lands are of quasi judicial nature and not administrative orders. Hence the writ proceedings which were entertained by the learned single Judge and disposed of by him can only be under Art. 227 of the Constitution and as such Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable.

(14.) In view of our discussion made above and from the observations made by the learned single Judge of our High Court in the judgment rendered in Special Civil Applications No. 6068 of 1988 and 6069 of 1988 it is clear that both on facts and in law these Letters Patent Appeals are not competent and also have no merit. For those reasons both Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (KMV) Appeals dismisses.