Givndlal Chunilal Dalvadi v. STATE — 1993 DIGILAW 240 (GUJ)

S. D. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) CANCELLATION of permission granted under sec. 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, on the ground of non-compliance of some of the conditions subject to which the scheme for building 141 dwelling units for economically weaker sections of the society was sanctioned is the subject matter of challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) ON the date on which the petition was entertained by this Court, i. e. in September, 1991, all the dwelling units were fully constructed and occupied by the respective allottees and hence it was thought desirable to decide as to whether the order passed by the Competent Authority dated 30th July 1988 whereby the permission granted u/s. 21 is cancelled declaring the land in question as excess vacant land and applying the provisions of Chapter ; III of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, shall be permitted to stand or shall have to be quashed and set aside with appropriate direction. Incidentally it should be stated that the order of Competent Authority is confirmed in Appeal u/s. 33 of the said Act by the Additional Urban Land Tribunal by Judgment and order dated 7th october 1988. ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the challenge of the petitioner to the aforesaid two orders it would be necessary to set out the relevant facts hereunder: (I) The petitioner Govindlal Dalwadi is the owner of parcel of land bearing survey No. 475/1/2 situate at Odhav. The said land admeasures 18354 sq. mtrs. It was in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner therefore filled in Form No. 1 on coming into force of the said Act and applied for permission u/s. 21 of the said Act declaring his intention to the Competent Authority that the aforesaid land was to be utilised for the construction of dwelling units for the accommodation of the weaker section of the society. (II) The Competent Authority after making necessary inquiry by his order dated 15th October 1980 granted permission for utilising such land for the construction of the dwelling units subject to terms and conditions specifically stipulated in such order. One of the conditions inter alia stipulated that the construction under the said scheme shall be completed within a period of 5 years. One of the conditions inter alia stipulated that the construction under the said scheme shall be completed within a period of 5 years. In case such construction was not completed within the stipulated time or construction was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permission, the vacant land or land below the incomplete construction shall be treated as excess vacant land and it shall vests in the Government and for the construction which was already over no compensation shall be paid. This condition is condition No. l8. (III) There was one another condition providing that the petitioner shall construct a type tenement as well as b type Row-houses and it was stipulated that atype tenement shall be 70 in number while b type row-houses will be 71 in number. It is thus clear that in all 141 dwelling units were to be constructed within a period of 5 years. (IV) One of the conditions subject to which permission was granted inter alia provided that the price of a type tenement will be Rs. 40,071. 40 ps. and price of b type row-houses shall be Rs. 30,583. 03 ps. It was stipulated that the petitioner or the organizer of the scheme shall not transfer or sale any of the dwelling units at a price higher than the stipulated in the order. (V) It appears that from the date of the order granting permission u/s. 21 viz, 11th october 1980, the construction was to be completed within 5 years i. e. by 15th October 1985. However, when the Maintenance Surveyor visited the site he has found that out of 70 a type tenements 60 were completely constructed, while 10 were under construction and if b type row-houses only 26 row-houses were fully constructed while 45 row-houses were under construction. Since the construction was not completed within 5 years, notice dated 14th February 1986 was issued to the petitioner and on 28th February 1986 the present petitioner made his submission before the Competent authority. It appears that the petitioner entered into development contract with one M/s. Kishori Traders and a grievance was made before the competent Authority that said Kishori Traders has charged more price than that was determined by the Competent Authority and that therefore also breach of the terms and conditionse of the permission was committed and permission was liable to be cancelled. (VI) The Competent Authority be judgment and order dated 30th June 1988 held that there was two fold breach of the terms and conditions of the permission, firstly it was found that entire construction was not completed within the period of 5 years and that some of the holders of the dwelling units have complained that the organizer of the scheme has charged more price than the one which was determined by the Competent Authority while granting the permission. (VII) Being aggrieved by the said order of the Competent Authority the present petitioner preferred Appeal u/s. 33 of the said Act to the Urban Land Tribunal and the Tribunal found that construction in its entirety was not completed within the stipulated period of 5 years and that it was established that extra money was collected from two members and therefore breach of the terms and conditions was established and hence Appeal was dismissed. ( 4 ) IN response to the notice issued by this Court respondents have appeared and one mr. K. A. Patel, Competent Authority has filed Affidavit in Reply. Along with the Affidavit in Reply the panchnama, which was prepared by the Maintenance Surveyor on 2nd november 1985, is produced and from the said panchnama it becomes clear that as on 2nd November 1985 out of 70 a type tenements 60 were fully completed and out of 71 b type row-houses only 26 row-houses were completed and rest were under construction. It appears that two members of the scheme viz. Jethabhai Parmer and Chirag sutaria complained that the higher price was recovered from them than one which was determined by the Competent Authority and after hearing the land holder and giving opportunity of being heard to M/s. Kishori Traders, impugned order was passed cancelling the permission which was granted. The organizer M/s. Kishori Traders has failed to remain present before the Authority and therefore it is averred in the affidavit-in-Reply that the order passed by the Competent Authority should be upheld and the petition should be dismissed. ( 5 ) WHEN this petition was heard for hearing by this Court ( S. D. Shah, J.) on 15th july 1991 it was stated before the Court that all a type tenements as well as b type row-houses were fully constructed and occupied by the respective allottees. ( 5 ) WHEN this petition was heard for hearing by this Court ( S. D. Shah, J.) on 15th july 1991 it was stated before the Court that all a type tenements as well as b type row-houses were fully constructed and occupied by the respective allottees. This court thereupon directed the Competent Authority to make on the spot survey and to submit report of such survey by 24th July 1991. ( 6 ) FROM the report of the officer dated 24th July 1991. it transpires that all 70 a type tenements are fully constructed and are occupied and that out of 71 b type row-houses 70 were fully constructed and one plot was lying vacant. From the report dated 24th July 1991 it transpires that construction of some of the dwelling units was completed after 2nd november 1985 and such dwelling units were being occupied by allottees without obtaining occupancy certificate from the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority has noted in his report that construction is completed after the permission was cancelled by the Competent Authority vide his order dated 30th June 1988 and therefore such construction is not to be taken into consideration. ( 7 ) FROM the report of the Competent Authority it also transpires that out of 70 a type tenements 68 original allottees themselves with their family members are residing, while one allottee has disposed of the tenement and three have rented out the tenements. Out of 70 row-houses 57 are being occupied by the persons to whom they were allotted while 5 are disposed of by Sale Deed and 8 are rented out to other persons. ( 8 ) FROM the aforesaid facts this Court is now called upon to decide the question as to whether the order of the Competent Authority dated 30th June 1988 cancelling the permission granted u/s. 21 of the said Act should be permitted to stand so as to declare the open land as vacant land as well as land below the incomplete construction as vacant land so as to render number of allottees who are now occupying the houses homeless or whether by appropriate direction the breach of the aforesaid terms and conditions be condoned so that persons belonging to weaker section of the society who are now allotted dwelling units are not rendered homeless. In the alternative it is also required to be examined as to whether by imposing reasonable conditions on the present petitioners and the organizer of the society objectives underlying the scheme u/s. 21 of the Act can be achieved. ( 9 ) IT is now well established that the right to live which is guaranted by Article 21 includes the right to livelihood. The sweep of the right to live conferred by Article 21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean merely that the right cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to live would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the lifes of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right of life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life. Indeed, that explains the massive migration of the rural population to big cities. They migrate because they have no means of livelihood in the villages. The motive force which propels their desertion of their hearths and homes in the village is the struggle for survival, that is, the struggle for life. So unimpeachable -is the evidence of he nexus between life and the means of livelihood. They have to eat to live. Only a handful can afford the luxury of living to eat. That they can do, namely, eat, only if they have the means of livelihood. So unimpeachable -is the evidence of he nexus between life and the means of livelihood. They have to eat to live. Only a handful can afford the luxury of living to eat. That they can do, namely, eat, only if they have the means of livelihood. (Vide observations of Chief justice of India Y. V. Chandrachud in olga Tellis and others vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, A. I. R. 1986 S. C. 180), the importance of right to livelihood, that is, the right to home cannot be better stated, than the aforesaid extract from Olga Tellis. It is an accepted position that the u. L. C. Act has not achieved its desired objective nor has it been properly implemented. Though object in enacting Section 21 of the Act was laudable, that is, to see that the excess vacant land is utilised for "have nots" of the society by providing them small dwelling units so that the problems of scarcity of houses which urben population is facing can be substantially solved by implementing the scheme u/s. 21 of the said Act, it has miserably failed to achieve the desired objective, it may be stated that this section is regarded by many commentators as major escape rout to escape from the clutches of u. L. C. Act, by unscrupulous land holders, building contractors and developers who by means, fair and foul thwart and render meaningless the legislative will and the constitutional mandate. The Scheme of dwelling units for weaker section of the society as envisaged by Sec. 21 are like a drop in the ocean and if such schemes are not meaningfully and purposefully completed and implemented even that drop is denied to those who have no house or spot to live in. For a large number of Indians drain pipe dwellings, swamps, cess pools and stinking street sides are the desperate shelter, sub-human alternatives for a living are the compulsions of survival and human worms are surviving in heart-breaking humiliations. A humble habitation as a human right for every family is how accepted as a fundamental right and a constitutional good. However, for majority of homeless of India the position is -" The earth is all the home I have the heavens my wide roof- tree. "this stark reality exists and would perist even after 45 years independence. A humble habitation as a human right for every family is how accepted as a fundamental right and a constitutional good. However, for majority of homeless of India the position is -" The earth is all the home I have the heavens my wide roof- tree. "this stark reality exists and would perist even after 45 years independence. To put it in the words of justice V. R. Krishna Iyer-"if social Justice is the constitutional essence, the first faith and the last creed is that the man alone matters, not riches; and one India without a spot to sleep is a challenge to all out developmental boasts. ""the purpose of development should not be to develop things, but to develop man. " ( Cocoyoc Declaration ). It is thus clear that if India is to transfer slums of despair into the homes of hope and the poors are to be provided at least shelter on their heads by small mud houses, schemes u/s. 21 shall have to be faithfully implemented with the sole objective of seeing that right to home is guaranteed to as many homeless as possible. Any technical or hyper technical approach to the problem is bound to result into frustrating the legislative will and still further denueding the constitutional guarantee of its meaningful content. Shelter to every homeless individual can only be provided if practical, realistic and sensitive approach is taken to the problem. ( 10 ) IN the light of the aforesaid constitutional objectives and the legislative intent to acquire surplus urban land so as to distributes the same to the landless and homeless millions of India. Section 21 of the Act is to be implemented. Section 21 has unfortunately turned out to be a major escape rout for the land-holders and organisers from the clutches of the provisions of ULC Act. The primary object of the Act was to acquire excess vacant land. Instead of acquiring the vacant land in excess of ceiling limit and making use of it in the public interest, or to carry out the objects of the Act, the section provides that the person holding the land may be allowed to develop it himself and to provide accommodation for the weaker sections of the society. Instead of acquiring the vacant land in excess of ceiling limit and making use of it in the public interest, or to carry out the objects of the Act, the section provides that the person holding the land may be allowed to develop it himself and to provide accommodation for the weaker sections of the society. Such a person has to fulfil conditions stipulated by Sec. 21 and those which may be imposed while granting permission before the excess vacant lant held by him is not treated as excess vacant land liable to be acquired. The procedure is prescribed by Sec. 21 (1) read with form prescribed under the Rules. The Scheme of plan has to be considered by number of Authorities before the exemption under the section is granted. Even such permission which is granted after elaborate procedure is subject to conditions and in the event of the breach of any condition the Competent Authority has power to resume the excess vacant land and to take steps to acquire it for the State. Notwithstanding the elaborate procedure and various measures adopted to check and balance the dubious devices of land holders and builders, large number of land holders in urban agglomeration have been successful in floating the schemes u/s. 21 of the Act and thereafter making mockery of the provisions either in constructing the houses or dwelling units which are beyond the reach of weaker sections of the society or in making houses available at prices which weaker sections and homeless masses of India can never aspire to earn despite sweating and toiling for the entire life, despite this stark reality about the implementation of the schemes u/s. 21, it shall have to be stated that in the case before this Court though not strictly but substantially an attempt was made by the land holder to implement the scheme. It is undoubtedly true that when the land holder is permitted to hold back the excess vacant land he is the first beneficiary inasmuch as by floating the scheme he is provided an opportunity to earn as much as he could (by dubious means) by floating the scheme. It is undoubtedly true that when the land holder is permitted to hold back the excess vacant land he is the first beneficiary inasmuch as by floating the scheme he is provided an opportunity to earn as much as he could (by dubious means) by floating the scheme. This legislative sympathy has proved to be misplaced sympathy and desire to protect the property holder under a subterfuge of providing dwelling units to the weaker sections of the society is nothing but an attempt at giving maximum benefit to the excess land holders. However, in order to appreciate the applicability of Sec. 21 (2) of the Act to the fact situation in the case before this Court it will be necessary to refer to Sec. 21 (2) of the said Act and the same is quoted hereunder:sec. 21 (2 ). Contravention of the conditions of permission for the scheme the language of the sub-section is positive. As soon as there is a contravention of any of the conditions, the competent authority is required to withdraw the permission and declare such land to be excess land. On such declaration he shall take the necessary steps for its acquistion by the State. In view of this positive language, one may say that the competent authority has no discretion in the matter nor the opportunity contemplated by the sub-section to the applicant will include giving an opportunity to him to remedy, if possible, the contravention of the condition. The applicant on being given such an opportunity will only be entitled to show that there has in fact been no contravention of any of the conditions of the permission. Once the finding is given in favour of contravention, the competent authority is bound to proceed to acquire the vacant land. "it becomes clear from the aforesaid provision that any land holder who contravened any of the condition subject to which the permission has been granted incurs liability of action u/s. 21 (2 ). It is pertinent to note that Sec. 21 (2) permit such holder of the land to continue to hold such land for the purpose of constructing the dwelling units for the accommodation of the weaker section of the society in accordance with the scheme approved by the Authority. It is pertinent to note that Sec. 21 (2) permit such holder of the land to continue to hold such land for the purpose of constructing the dwelling units for the accommodation of the weaker section of the society in accordance with the scheme approved by the Authority. Such holding of the land is subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed including the condition as to the time limit within which such building are to be contracted. By a specific reference to condition about time limit the Parliament has made its objective explicit and has provided that condition about time limit shall have to be followed. The Parliament intended such excess vacant land to be put to use for weaker sections of the society as early as possible. The aforesaid objective is missed by the Competent Authority. In the fact of this case dwelling units were to be completed by 14th October 1985. In the inquiry which was made on 2nd November 1985 it was found that out of 70 a type tenements 60 were fully completed and 10 were under construction. Strictly legally condition of time was not observed vis-a-vis 10 a type tenements Admittedly, there was breach of the condition. Out of 71 b type row-houses only 28 houses were fully constructed while balance were under construction. Here there was substantial-non-compliance of the condition to complete the dwelling units within 5 years. It cannot therefore, be disputed that the condition about completion of dwelling units within the prescribed period was not followed by the petitioner and therefore the liability of action u/s,21 (2) was incurred. The legislature has in Sec. 21 (2) stipulated that the Competent Authority shall declare such land to be excess land with respect to which condition of constructing dwelling units is not followed. The question that arise for consideration is as to whether it is obligatory for the competent authority in all cases to declare such land to be excess land irrespective of the explanation and circumstances which the holder of the land may point out. It is required 16 be noted that the competent authority is to exercise such power after giving such holder of the land and opportunity of being heard. Passing of the order u/s. 21 (2) deprives the owners of an exemption which he might have earned u/s. 21 (1) of the Act. It is required 16 be noted that the competent authority is to exercise such power after giving such holder of the land and opportunity of being heard. Passing of the order u/s. 21 (2) deprives the owners of an exemption which he might have earned u/s. 21 (1) of the Act. It would also deprive the owner of all the excess land which he was permitted to retain for the purposes of constructing dwelling units for the accommodation of the weaker section of the society. The order which the Competent authority is required to pass u/s. 21 (2) has thus adverse and prejudicial effect on the holder of the land and therefore consistent with the rudimentary principle of natural justice the legislature has provided that any order u/s. 21 (2) shall be passed after giving such person an opportunity of being heard. From the nature of the power which the competent Authority exercises, the manner and method of exercising such power, the requirement of giving hearing to the holder of the land and the right of appeal provided against such order leave no room for doubt in holding that the power which the Authority exercises is quasi judicial power. In appropriate cases the competent authority may after giving an opportunity of being heard decide not to take action u/s. 21 (2 ). To say that it is obligatory for the competent authority to declare such land to be excess land on breach of any conditions being committed would, in my opinion, amount to rendering the opportunity of being heard meaningless. In order to see that opportunity of being heard is rendered meaningful and effective it shall have to be held that the Competent Authority has power to accept the explanation of the holder of the land and in a given case provide him an opportunity to complete the scheme despite his initial future to complete the scheme consistent with the conditions imposed. The use of the word shall in Section 21 (2), in my opinion, shall have to be read as leaving discretion with the Competent authority as to whether he should declare such land to be excess land or he should condone the breach of conditions and to see that scheme is implemented as early as possible, breach of the condition notwithstanding. ( 11 ) READ in the aforesaid perspective Sec. 21 (2) can be meaningfully employed by the Competent Authority so as to see that any contravention of the condition of the scheme does not result into frustration of the scheme. No doubt another view is also possible and that view is that Sec. 21 (2) employed positive language and therefore the competent Authority has no discretion in the matter nor the opportunity contemplated by the sub-section to the holder of the land will include giving opportunity to him to remedy, if possible, the contravention of the condition. As per this view the holder of the land on being given such an opportunity will only be entitled to say that there has in fact been no contravention of any of the condition of the permission. According to this view once the finding is given in favour of the contravention, the competent authority is bound to proceed to acquire the vacant land irrespective of the nature of construction, stage of construction, nature of breach, etc. This court would not approve this second approach to the problem because ultimate objective is to see that scheme by construction of dwelling units for weaker sections of the society is implemented. If the scheme is partially implemented for constructing some of the dwelling units the power of the Competent authority is to acquire vacant land and not the construction which might have been raised before the contravention. However, after acquistion the State Government may proceed with the completion of the scheme but the question is as to whether some power should be left with the Authority u/s. 21 (2) to see that the scheme is meaningfully implemented by the holder himself. In cases where the scheme is substantially implemented, like one before this Court where out of 70 tenements 60 were fully constructed, if would be just and proper to call upon the holder of the land to finish the construction of the rest of the tenements either by imposing some penalty or by providing for payment of some reasonable amount. In cases where the scheme is substantially implemented, like one before this Court where out of 70 tenements 60 were fully constructed, if would be just and proper to call upon the holder of the land to finish the construction of the rest of the tenements either by imposing some penalty or by providing for payment of some reasonable amount. It is undoubtedly true that with the possibility of escalation of prices, both of land and building material, delay in implementation of the scheme is disadvantageous to the holder of the land, but if by some concession incomplete building are got completed, in the opinion of this Court it would be better for implementation of the scheme rather than demolishing the incomplete construction and thereafter vesting the land in the Government for pubic purpose. Therefore, though in the present case there is clear violation of the condition about time limit within which the dwelling units were to be constructed, I am of the opinion that the competent Authority as well as appellate tribunal were required to act with some vision and with the desire to see that scheme is meaningfully implemented and is not rendered meaningless. The second report of the competent Authority which is submitted before this Court in the month of September 1991 establishes that all dwelling units were constructed. It is true that such construction is completed beyond the time limit. Despite such contravention the question which is required to be answered by this Court is as to whether for such non-compliance entire scheme can be rendered meaningless by permitting the Government to take over the land as vacant land especially when all houses are constructed and are being occupied by persons belonging to the weaker sections of the society. Despite such contravention the question which is required to be answered by this Court is as to whether for such non-compliance entire scheme can be rendered meaningless by permitting the Government to take over the land as vacant land especially when all houses are constructed and are being occupied by persons belonging to the weaker sections of the society. This Court also fails to understand as to how in the fact situation of this type the Competent Authority can be permitted to utilise the power u/s. 21 (2) so as to declare the land as excess vacant land when persons belonging to the weaker sections of the society have invested their hard earned income for getting the dwelling units and when they have got such dwelling units, therefore, I am of the opinion that the order of the competent Authority as confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal cannot be permitted to stand, but at the same time some reasonable condition shall have to be imposed for breach of terms and condition subject to which permission u/s. 21 (1) was granted. ( 12 ) AT this stage it must also be noticed that it was the case of the holder of the land that he could not complete the construction within the stipulated time as building permission was granted very late by Nagar Panchayat of Odhav and also because of he disturbed condition in the city of Ahmedabad due to criminal riots which erupted for 3 to 4 times in the period of 3 years. The construction work was therefore required to be abandoned and labourers were also affarid for coming to the work immediately after normalcy was restored. The factum of riots in the cily of Ahmedabad cannot be disputed and it shall have to be accepted that some reasonable explanation was given by the land holder which partially explained the delay in completing the construction. It would have been therefore just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case to condone such breach of condition by imposing some reasonable penalty. ( 13 ) THE second breach which is alleged against the holder of the land is that his organizer viz. M/s. Kishori Traders has charged more price than the determined price at least from two members who have given details of such payment. ( 13 ) THE second breach which is alleged against the holder of the land is that his organizer viz. M/s. Kishori Traders has charged more price than the determined price at least from two members who have given details of such payment. The breach is undoubtedly serious, The two members who have complained about such breach are one jethabhai Ugharabhai Pannar. He has complained in writing that he has been allotted a type tenement, the price of which was fixed at Rs. 40,071. 40ps. His grievance is that the organizer has charged from him Rs. 75,000/ -. Along with his complaints in writing he has annexed copies of some of the receipt and for the amount of Rs. 13,030/-, he has stated that the said amount is paid by cheque for which no receipt is given. Another complaint is given by one Chirag P. Sutaria, who has been allotted b type row-house, the price of which was fixed at Rs. 30,563/ -. He has complained that the organizer has recovered from him more than Rs. 40,000/ -. Prima facie it appears that M/s. Kishori Traders who has under the Development Agreement coastructed units has charged more price than the permissible price. Mr. Y. N. Oza, ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has not charged any more amount and unless opportunity is given to the petitioner to know from the aforesaid two persons as to who has charged the excess amount and what is the nature of proof available with them, the petitioner should not be visited with any adverse order. At this stage I am of the opinion that since breach alleged against the petitioner is of serious nature and since organizer M/s. Kishori Traders has failed to remain present before the Competent Authority one action shall have to be taken for this breach. However, before any action is taken for this breach against the petitioner it would be in the interest of justice to direct the Competent Authority to make necessary inquiry by calling said Jethabhai Ugharabhai Parmar and Chirag P. Sutaria to produce whatever evidence they have with them in support of their say and petitioner should be given copy of such evidence and he should also be given opportunity to say whatever he wants to say about recovery of excess payment. The Competent Authority shall also call upon M/s. Kishori Traders and shall direct the petitioner also to see that M/s. Kishori traders remain present before it. After holding necessary inquiry the Competent authority shall decide as to what excess amount has been paid by Jethabhai Ughrabhai parmar and Chirag P. Sutaria and for such excess amount the Competent Authority shall call upon the petitioner to deposit such excess amount with Competent Authority within reasonable time. The petitioner shall deposit such amount as may be determined by the competent Authority before the Competent Authority and in case the petitioner fails to deposit such amount within stipulated time the Judgment and order of this Court shall become operative and the order of the Competent Authority as confirmed by the appellate Authority shall operate. ( 14 ) IN view of the above this Court is of the opinion that there was no justification in cancelling the Scheme as such. The order of the Competent Authority and that of the appellate Authority are therefore quashed and set aside subject to following conditions which the petitioner shall comply by 31st July 1993. (I) The petitioner shall deposit penalty/compensation for late construction at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per incomplete dwelling units in a type tenements totalling to Rs,20,000/- and at the rate Of Rs. 2. 000/- per incomplete b type row-house totalling to Rs. 90,000/- (II) One plot of land in b type row-houses which is not constructed upon shall vests in the Government: (III) The petitioner shall deposit the amount of excess recovery made from jethabhai Ugharabhai Parmar and Chirag P. Sutaria which may be determined by the Competent Authority as directed hereinabove within one month of the order of Competent Authority and the Competent Authority shall decide such amount within 3 months from today; (IV) In case, any of the aforesaid conditions are not complied with by the petitioner, the Judgment and order of the Competent Authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority shall operate and Judgment of this court shall become inoperative. ( 15 ) IN the result the Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. .