Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 1200
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. Ravikumar, Sanjay Kumar, JJ.
Kanaiyalal Mafatlal Patel – Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7963 of 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6536 of 2022)
Decided On : 06-12-2023
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Percy Kavina, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harivadan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ashok Parmar, Adv. Mr. C. George Thomas, AOR Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Harivadan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Appellant cannot be condemned without providing him a full opportunity to put forth his case with supporting evidence.
Headnote:
Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 – Section 31(1)(b) – Summary eviction from the land – Alleged violation of provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 – Findings recorded by High Court that there was no partition and that land was never demarcated, whereby a portion thereof could have been sold to appellant, do not take into account fact that Respondents themselves executed sale agreement in year 2014 and contents thereof support appellant’s claim that Respondents were entitled to sell him their half-share – Having purchased land in year 2007 after parting with valuable consideration, appellant cannot be condemned without providing him a full opportunity to put forth his case with supporting evidence – Orders passed by Gujarat High Court as well as orders passed by authorities set aside and matter remanded for consideration afresh on facts and law. (Paras 16 and 17)
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was unsuccessful before the Gujarat High Court in his challenge to the orders passed by the authorities holding that the sale transaction in his favour was in breach of the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’), and directing his summary eviction from the land in question. Hence, this appeal.
3. While ordering notice on 13.04.2022, this Court required the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the subject land.
4. Ancestral agricultural land admeasuring 4755 square metres, bearing Block No. 521 (New Block Survey No. 805), situated in Village Ambapur, Taluka and District Gandhinagar, Gujarat, was inherited by one Shankarbhai Dungardas. He died in the year 1952 leaving behind three sons -Becharbhai, Prabhudasbhai and Lalbhai. Becharbhai died on 24.04.1993, leaving behind his widow, Surajben (Respondent No. 14) and progeny -Shardaben (Respondent No. 10), Mafatbhai (Respondent No. 11), Kokilaben (Respondent No. 12), Manjulaben (Respondent No. 13) and Sakarben (Respondent No. 15). Prabhudasbhai died on 21.01.2007, leaving behind his widow, Dahiben (Respondent No. 8), along with two sons and a daughter -Jayantibhai (Respondent No. 6), Keshavlal (Respondent No. 7) and Belaben (Respondent No. 9). Lalbhai died on 04.08.1996, leaving behind his widow, Gangaben (Respondent No. 19), two sons and a daughter -Ghanshyambhai (Respondent No. 16), Rajubhai (Respondent No. 17) and Vinaben (Respondent No. 18).
5. It is the case of the appellant that the larger extent of 4755 square metres, owned by Shankarbhai, was partitioned amongst the families of his three sons, whereby 2377.50 square metres fell to the share of Prabhudasbhai and Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 while the remaining extent of 2377.50 square metres was allotted to the other two branches, comprising Respondent Nos. 10 to 19. The appellant further claims that Respondent Nos. 10 to 19 executed Agreement of Sale dated 29.09.2006 in his favour proposing to sell their share of land, viz., 2377.50 square metres, to him for a sale consideration of Rs.17,51,000/-and Prabhudasbhai, the husband/father of Respondent Nos. 6 to 9, who was still alive at that time, signed this agreement as a confirming party, certifying that he had a half-share in the larger extent of land, which he had not sold, and confirmed that he had not received any amount from the sale consideration. Thereafter, Respondent Nos. 10 to 19 executed a Registered Sale Deed in favour of the appellant on 12.07.2007, alienating their share of the land in his favour. Notably, the Agreement of Sale dated 29.09.2006 recorded that Respondent Nos. 10 to 19 had received the entire sale consideration of Rs.17,51,000/-in cash and through cheques gradually, whereas the Sale Deed dated 12.07.2007 noted the sale consideration as Rs.1,07,000/-only. Pursuant thereto, Entry No. 6129 was made on 25.07.2007 in the revenue records carrying out mutation in his favour. The names of Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 were also mutated, vide Entry No. 6167 dated 26.12.2007, after the death of Prabhudasbhai on 21.01.2007.
6. Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 then filed Case No. PO/Fragmentation/SR/02/2010 in March, 2010, before the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar, challenging the sale transaction of the year 2007 in favour of the appellant, alleging that it was in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1947. By order dated 17.05.2012, the Prant Officer held the sale transaction to be illegal on the ground that it was in breach of Section 31(1) (b) of the Act of 1947. In consequence, he ordered cancellation of the appellant’s sale deed and payment of a fine of Rs.250/-by him. He also directed initiation of proceedings to remove the appellant from the land.
7. A revision under Section 35 of the Act of 1947 was thereupon filed in the name of the appellant before the Gujarat Government, assailing the aforestated order dated 1
