Lalitshanker Thakorbhai Desai and Another vs State of Gujarat and Another

R.C. Mankad, J.—Petitioners have moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the order Annexure ''I'' dated February 25, 1987, rejecting their application for exemption u/s 20(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

Petitioner No. 1 holds lands admeasuring 10,143 Sq-mtrs. bearing S. No. 140 of village Majura, City Survey No. 722 and Final plot No. 59/1 of Town Planning Scheme-9. Out of these lands held by petitioner No. 1 exemption u/s 20(1) of the Act was claimed in respect of 8361 Sq-mtrs. of lands after completing sale in favour of Dhaval Co-operative Housing Society, petitioner No. 2 herein. The State Government has, by the impugned order, refused to grant exemption on the following grounds, namely, (i) the land in question was needed by the Government for public purpose; (ii) petitioners had failed to establish undue hardship to the holder; and (iii) the request made by petitioner No. 2-Society was not in consonance with the provisions of the Act.

The State Government has issued guidelines which are at Annexure ''E'' to the petition, for the purpose of granting exemption u/s 20(1) of the Act. It is provided therein that if the land in respect of which exemption was claimed, was needed by the Government, exemption shall not be granted. Section 20 confers powers on the State Government to grant exemption and Sub-section (1) thereof which is relevant for our purpose reads as follows :

20(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any of the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, --

(a) Where any person holds vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit and the State Government is satisfied, either on its own motion or otherwise, that, having regard to the location of such land, the purpose for which such land is being or is proposed to be used and such other relevant factors as the circumstances of the case may require, it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do that Government may, by order, exempt, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order, such vacant land from the provisions of this Chapter;

(b) Where any person holds vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit and the State Government, either on its own motion or otherwise, is satisfied that the application of the provisions of this Chapter would cause undue hardship to such person, that Government may, by order, exempt, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order, such vacant land from the provisions of this Chapter:

Provided that no order under this clause shall be made unless the reasons for doing as are recorded in writing.

It is clear from Clause (a) of Section 20(1) that before granting exemption, the Government has to be satisfied that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest to grant exemption. Under Clause (b) of the said sub-section, in order to grant exemption, Government has to be satisfied that the provisions of Chapter III of the Act would cause undue hardship to the holder of the vacant land. The guidelines which are issued by the Government are only for the purpose of deciding the application for exemption made u/s 20 of the Act. Unless the holder of the vacant land brings case within four corners of the aforesaid provision regarding exemption, he is not entitled to exemption. So far as Clause (a) of Section 20(1) is concerned, what is paramount is public interest and so far as Clause (b) is concerned, it is undue hardship. It is in the context of Clause (a) that the Government has in its guidelines laid down that if the land is needed by Government then exemption should not be granted. If the land is needed by the Government for its own or public purpose, it would not be in the public interest to grant exemption.

In the instant case, it is stated in the impugned order that the land is needed by Government for public purpose. It has been further found that no undue hardship is likely to be caused to the holder of the vacant land, namely, petitioner No. 1, if exemption is refused. Thus petitioner No. 1 is not entitled to exemption under either of the clauses of Section 20(1). It was submitted that though the petitioners were given opportunity of being heard, they were not given details regarding the need of the land by the Government for its own or public purpose. It is not necessary to give such details to the petitioner. It was for the Government to be satisfied whether the land was needed for its own use or for public purpose, and if it was satisfied that it was so needed, it was within its rights to reject the application for exemption.

This Court is not sitting in appeal and it therefore, cannot examine the petitioners'' claim for exemption afresh on merits only question which this Court can consider is whether the action of the Government in refusing to grant exemption is illegal or arbitrary. Petitioners have not been able to establish that the action of the Government is illegal or arbitrary. Nor is any error apparent on the face of the record committed by the Government in rejecting the petitioners'' application for exemption. I, therefore, do not see any reason to entertain this petition.

In the result, this petition fails and is rejected. Notice discharged. Ad interim relief vacated. There would be no order as to costs.