TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner claimed to be the owner of Plot No. 99 (part) admeasuring 60.29 square metres situated at Dholariya Nagar in Rajkot ('the disputed property' for convenience). According to the petitioner, his holding of the urban property amenable to the Act was within the ceiling limit. He wanted to sell the disputed property to one Kiritkumar Jaisukhlal Patan ('the proposed purchaser' for convenience). The petitioner thereupon served the required notice under Section 26(1) of the Act to the respondent in the prescribed form on 24th June 1982. Its copy is at Annexure A to this petition. It was accompanied by his affidavit to the effect that the disputed property belonged to him and his holding was within the ceiling limit fixed under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber 1982, the respondent returned the petitioner's notice of 24th June 1982 on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the particulars regarding his title to the disputed land. Its copy is at Annexure G to this petition. The petitioner thereupon addressed one communication of 21st July 1982 indicating that he had produced in the office of the respondent on 17th July 1982 a copy of the index with respect to his document of title duly certified by the Sub-Registrar at Rajkot. The petitioner thereupon requested the respondent to consider his notice under Section 26(1) of the Act in accordance with law. By his communication of 25th August 1982, the respondent again returned the petitioner's notice under Section 26(1) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has held that the Competent Authority was not justified in calling for any such particulars and he had no power to return the notice under Section 26(1) of the Act on that ground. 4. It cannot be gainsaid that the judgments of this Court have binding effect throughout the State of Gujarat. It cannot be gainsaid that the respondent at the relevant time was exercising his powers under Section 26(1) of the Act. He could not have bypassed or disregarded the judgments of this Court. It transpires from the communication at Annexures D to this petition that copies of the aforesaid three judgments were supplied to him. In that view of the matter, the respondent herein could not have bypassed or disregarded the said judgments except at the peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B to this petition accompanied the notice at Annexure A to this petition. In that view of the matter, it was not necessary for the respondent to inquire into the petitioner's title to the property in question or to ascertain whether or not his holding was within the ceiling limit. If the petitioner's affidavit was false, he could have been prosecuted for perjury. The notice served by him to the respondent under Section 26(1) of the Act could not have been returned by the respondent as has been done by him in the present case. 6. Ordinarily, I might have taken a very serious view of the matter by initiating the proceeding against the respondent herein under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. I have refrained from doing so from two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
