1. Dispute over acquisition of surplus land under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 — challenge to possession panchnama following the enactment of the Repeal Act, 1999. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 360
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
Kapilaben Ambalal Patel & Ors. – Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6380 OF 2012
Decided On : 06-05-2020
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Physical possession must be taken by State authorities failing which proceedings shall abate on account of Repeal Act.
(2) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Sections 10(3), 20 and 21 – Exemption from land ceiling proceeding – Pendency of application under Section 21 is not saved by repeal Act as in those proceedings claim of owners is for acquiring a right and not for enforcement of accrued right.
(1) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Physical possession must be taken by State authorities failing which proceedings shall abate on account of Repeal Act.
(2) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Sections 10(3), 20 and 21 – Exemption from land ceiling proceeding – Pendency of application under Section 21 is not saved by repeal Act as in those proceedings claim of owners is for acquiring a right and not for enforcement of accrued right.
Subject
LACHES - DELAY IN FILING WRIT PETITION
Act Referred
URBAN LAND CEILING AND REGULATIONS ACT: S.10(3), S.20, S.21
Headnote
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Sections 10(3), 20 and 21 – Exemption from land ceiling proceeding – Physical possession must be taken by State authorities failing which proceedings shall abate on account of Repeal Act – Pendency of application under Section 21 is not saved by repeal Act as in those proceedings claim of owners is for acquiring a right and not for enforcement of accrued right – Appellants have resorted to all possible pleas – First, application for exemption under Section 20 of 1976 Act was moved which was allowed by competent authority on 6.3.1980, but appellants chose to withdraw the same – That request was eventually granted by competent authority on 1.2.1985 – Appellants then waited till notification under Section 10(3) of 1976 Act was issued on 25.7.1985 and opted for remedy of exemption under Section 21 by filing an application on 22.8.1985 – That came to be rejected on 15.12.1986 against which decision a review application was filed after lapse of two years – Besides taking possession, respondent had determined compensation for which notice under Section 11 was issued to appellants on 17.5.1986 – Writ petition filed by appellants after lapse of 14 years was hopelessly barred by delay and suffered from laches – Writ petition filed by appellants was hopelessly delayed and suffered from laches – Impugned decision of Division Bench of High Court ought to be upheld on threshold ground of writ petition being barred by laches – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 15, 17, 18, 21 and 22)
Facts of the Case:
Present appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26.4.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad1 in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 233/2006, whereby, the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 12602/2001 filed by the appellants came to be dismissed whilst setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in the said writ petition.
Findings of the Court:
Division Bench, in our opinion, therefore, was right in concluding that the writ petition filed by the appellants after lapse of 14 years was hopelessly barred by delay and suffered from laches. We are in agreement with the said view taken by the High Court in the peculiar facts of the present case.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
The judgment has been cited further in subsequent legal proceedings and discussions related to the same or similar issues of land acquisition, possession, and procedural delays. It has been referenced to support arguments concerning the importance of timely filing of legal challenges, the validity of possession and notification procedures, and the principles of laches and delay in filing writ petitions. The case has also been used to emphasize the significance of actual physical possession over mere paper possession, and the impact of procedural lapses on the enforceability of land acquisition actions. These references indicate that the judgment continues to be relevant in ongoing legal debates about the procedural correctness and timeliness of land acquisition and related rights.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Deepanwita Priyanka, Advocate
For the Appellant(s) :Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Deepanwita Priyanka, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contest the validity of the possession panchnama and notice — State argues the writ petition is barred by delay and laches. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. The writ petition was filed after an inordinate delay without plausible explanation, despite the appellants' knowledge of the State's claim of possession in prior proceedings. (Para 9 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. A writ petition challenging a possession panchnama filed after an inordinate delay without sufficient cause is barred by the doctrine of laches. (Para 17 , 19 )
5. Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Division Bench upholding the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of laches is upheld. (Para 21 , 22 )
6. Can a writ petition challenging a possession panchnama be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches?
Yes, discretionary relief under Article 226 is subject to the equitable doctrine of delay and laches. If a petitioner is not vigilant in exercising their rights and approaches the court after an inordinate delay without plausible explanation, the petition may be dismissed. (Para 9 , 15 , 17 )
7. Does a power of attorney remain valid after the death of the principal?
No, the authority granted by a principal to a power of attorney holder terminates immediately upon the death of the principal. (Para 6 , 7 , 15 )
8. How is physical possession of land typically established in compulsory acquisition proceedings?
The accepted mode of taking possession is drafting a Panchnama in the presence of Panchas and delivering possession to the beneficiaries. Subsequent retention of possession by the original owner is considered illegal or unlawful. (Para 19 )
9. What is the evidentiary value of revenue records regarding land possession?
Revenue records possess presumptive value, but this presumption can be rebutted by evidence such as a possession panchnama and subsequent official actions to enter the State's name in the revenue records. (Para 15 )
JUDGMENT
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26.4.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad [For short, “the High Court”] in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 233/2006, whereby, the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 12602/2001 filed by the appellants came to be dismissed whilst setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in the said writ petition. By the said writ petition, the appellants had sought following reliefs:
“8. The petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order and be pleased:
(A) to declare that the Panchnama dated 20.03.1986, (Annexure D) and the purported action of the respondents to take possession, purported constructive or actual of the lands mentioned in para (c) hereinabove is contrary to law and of no legal effect.
(B) to permanently restrain the respondents from disturbing or taking possession of the petitioners lands admeasuring 12,385 sq. mts. or any part thereof mentioned in Panchnama dated 20.03.1986 (Annexure D).
(C) commanding the respondents to deliver back to the petitioners possession of the said lands, if they are held to be in possession de facto or dejure thereof.
(D) to restrain the respondents from taking any proceedings in respect of the said lands pursuant to the order dated 01.02.85 of the Competent Authority.
(E) to restrain pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition the respondents from in any manner disturbing or interfering with the possession of the said lands which are in joint possession of the petitioners and other joint holders.
(F) to grant such other and further reliefs as this Honourable Court in the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit and proper.
(G) to provide for the costs of this petition.”
2. The backdrop in which the writ petition was filed can be stated thus.
3. The appellants claim to be legal representatives of the original owner of the land in question, namely, Parsottambhai Patel, who died on 28.1.1976 before the commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 [For short, “the 1976 Act”] in the State of Gujarat i.e., with effect from 17th February, 1976. He had five sons, namely, (i) Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel, (ii) Maganbhai Parsottambhai Patel, (iii) Babarbhai Parsottambhai Patel, (iv) Bhailalbhai Parsottambhai Patel and (v) Ramanbhai Parsottambhai Patel. Family of the said Parsottambhai Patel filed statements under Section 6 of the 1976 Act on 13.8.1976 in the name(s) of (i) Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel, (ii) Bhikhabhai Maganbhai Patel, son of deceased Maganbhai Parsottambhai Patel, (iii) Jayantibhai Babarbhai Patel and Jethabhai Babarbhai Patel, sons of deceased Babarbhai Parsottambhai Patel, (iv) Natvarbhai Bhailalbhai Patel, son of deceased Bhailalbhai Parsottambhai Patel and (v) Ramanbhai Parsottambhai Patel as owners of land admeasuring 30385.10 square meters bearing Survey Nos. 362, 378, 592, 593/1, 593/2 (Final Plot numbers 280, 287, 108, 115 and 116) of Village Manjalpur, District Vadodara in the State of Gujarat. The statements disclosed that other persons were also interested in the stated land. Later, an application came to be filed on behalf of the five brothers for exemption under Section 20 (1)(a) of the 1976 Act. That was granted vide order dated 6.3.1980/29.11.1980 by the Deputy Collector and Under Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat. On 8.6.1981, in response to the draft statements, objections were filed in the name of Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel through Power of Attorney holder Ramanbhai Parsottambhai Patel. Pursuant to request made by the land owners to cancel the agriculture exemption, an order was passed by the office of competent authority and Additional Collector (ULC), Vadodara on 7.11.1983. The competent authori
