Back
2001 Supreme(Guj) 263
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :B.C.PATEL, D.A.MEHTA
BIPINCHANDRA P.PATEL - Appellant
Versus
ANAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
S.C.A. 2210 of 1993
Decided On : 04/23/2001
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 12, 226 - Town Planning Act, 1954 - Subsection (2) of Section 28,6 - Development Act Section 26 Section 40 (3) (jj) (C ) and 22 - Present petition is filed under Article of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the Resolution dated passed by Area Development Authority - Respondent No. 1, and approved by the President Municipality - Respondent No. - Petitioners have further prayed that the document entered into between one and others and the Senior Assistant of the AADA, Respondent No. 1, in pursuance of the letter dated 14/06/1991 be cancelled - Petitioners have further prayed for issuance of direction against the Respondent No. 4 to immediately hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the entire plot of land being part and parcel of Final Plot of Town Planning Scheme No. , to the Municipality, Respondent No. 2. - Petitioners have further prayed to direct the State Government to take appropriate action against Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 as also against Officers of the Respondent No. 7, the Collector of District - petitioner, at the relevant time, was the Chairman of Peoples Co-operative Bank Limited and Municipal Councillor and is also a lawyer - Payment of occupancy price equal to 15 times the assessment plus the cost of trees, huts etc. which was fixed at plus local fund thereon, the same be handed over, considering the first default on the part of the original occupants and also as the land was required for cultivation for maintenance of the family - Prant Officer assessed the amount and granted the land to the original occupants by way of on inalienable and impartible tenure conditions on payment of as occupancy price, equivalent to 15 times assessment plus the cost of trees etc. at the rate of plus local funds, thereon subject to further conditions, namely that the grantees - Held, Court. We have indicated in our order that neither the Collector nor the Chairman, AADA nor the Municipality nor its Town Planning Officer Bhatt whose name is reflected in the order Annexure City nor the Deputy Collector were entitled to act in such a way so as to play mischief with the provisions made in the Development Act. The Officer concerned shall make a detailed inquiry to find out role played by Patel and if they are found to have acted in collusion, the State shall take appropriate action against these persons. - All persons connected and required in inquiry proceedings shall extend full cooperation to the Officer making the inquiry - Inquiry shall be completed within a period of six months and report of the same shall be placed before this Court for perusal. In case of any difficulty in proceeding with the inquiry Officer entrusted with the inquiry will be at liberty to move this Court - Registry is directed to notify this matter on for production of the inquiry report - Collector shall forthwith on receipt of writ of this order send notices to the respondent Nos. 8 to 39 to produce before him documents to show the amount paid by each of them - Collector for disposal of the land which belonged to the is ordered to be refunded to the contesting respondent Nos. 8 to 39 by the State Government within a period of eight weeks from today with interest at the rate of 12% per annum - Amount of difference of price with interest shall be paid after recording a finding by the Chief Secretary or the Officer who is entrusted the inquiry and after the Court passes an order on the basis of the report - Municipality, shall pay the costs of Chairman, AADA shall also pay the costs of which shall be recovered from the erring Chairman who was instrumental in making the impugned resolution and responsible for granting development permission sum of shall also be paid by way of costs by the Collector and the said amount shall be recovered from the erring Collector who made the order - Annexure-F. Out of these amounts, a sum of shall be paid to the petitioners by way of costs and the remaining amount shall be remitted to the State Exchequer - So far as the contesting respondent are concerned they are also held entitled to costs of these proceedings - State is directed to pay the amount of costs within a period of eight weeks to each contesting respondent in the sum - It will be open for the State Government to recover the amount of costs which is ordered to be paid to the contesting respondents from the erring officers. Rule is made absolute accordingly - Ordered Accordingly.
( 1 ) THE present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the Resolution dated 04/06/1991 passed by Anand Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as `the AADA), Respondent No. 1, and approved by the President, Anand Municipality, Anand, Respondent No. 3, on 12/06/1991. The petitioners have further prayed that the document entered into between one Jivaben and others and the Senior Assistant of the AADA, Respondent No. 1, in pursuance of the letter dated 14/06/1991 be cancelled. The petitioners have further prayed for issuance of direction against the Respondent No. 4 to immediately hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the entire plot of land being part and parcel of Final Plot No. 270 of Town Planning Scheme No. 4, Anand, to the Anand Municipality, Respondent No. 2. The petitioners have further prayed to direct the State Government to take appropriate action against Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 as also against Officers of the Respondent No. 7, the Collector of Kheda District.
( 2 ) THE petitioners, in their petition, pointed out that the first petitioner, at the relevant time, was the Chairman of Anand Peoples Co-operative Bank Limited, Anand and Municipal Councillor and is also a practising lawyer. The second petitioner is also a practising lawyer. On realising that there is a land scam, they have approached this Court by placing necessary material on record.
( 3 ) THE facts, briefly, leading to the present proceedings, are as under :
( 4 ) THE land bearing Survey No. 1934/4, admeasuring about 2-10 acres, which was assessed at Rs. 11-2-0 situated at village Anand, was in the names of Bhaijibhai Nanabhai, Bhathibhai Surabhai etc. before 1958 on new tenure conditions under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Shri Lallubhai Jenabhai and Mangalbhai Surabhai were in possession of the aforesaid parcel of land and they stated before the Revenue Authority that they had mortgaged the land to Shri Vajabhai Ramabhai. Thus, the Revenue Authority namely; Prant Officer, Anand, considering the facts and circumstances, arrived at a conclusion that there was a clear breach of condition and, therefore, ordered that the land be forfeited to the Government and entered as Government waste land. The Prant Officer further directed that necessary mutation entry be effected in the village record and entry be made in the New Tenure Land Register. The Prant Officer observed in his order that if original occupants, namely; Bhaijibhai Nanabhai and Bhathibhai Surabhai are willing to get the possession of the land, then, on condition of payment of occupancy price equal to 15 times the assessment plus the cost of trees, huts etc. which was fixed at Rs. 331. 00 plus local fund, cess thereon, the same be handed over, considering the first default on the part of the original occupants and also as the land was required for cultivation for maintenance of the family. The Prant Officer assessed the amount and granted the land to the original occupants by way of regrant on inalienable and impartible tenure conditions on payment of Rs. 167-14-0 as occupancy price, equivalent to 15 times assessment plus the cost of trees etc. at the rate of Rs. 331. 00 plus local funds, cess thereon, subject to further conditions, namely; (i) that the grantees shall take soil conservation measures in consultation with the Agriculture Department; (ii) that the grantees shall not allow the land to be uncultivated for the consecutive years failing which the land shall stand forfeited to the Government; and, (iii) that the grantees shall execute an agreement in Form I (i) within a period of two months from the date of grant. As the amount as aforesaid was not paid and the conditions as aforesaid were not fulfilled, the land was forfeited to the Government. Nothing was done by the aforesaid grantees after the order was passed on 24/01/1958 and, therefore, the land, which was forfeited as per the order made by t
