SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Guj) 933

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
P.P. BHATT, J.
Kalpataru Land (Surat) Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Honourable Gujarat Revenue Tribunal - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 12502 of 2010, Civil Application No. 1 of 2017
Decided On : 07-08-2018

Advocates Appeared:
N.D. Nanavaty, Adv., Prakash Jani, Adv., J.K. Shah, Adv., Hcls Committee, Adv., Dilip L Kanojiya, Adv., Mihir H Pathak, Adv., M.T.M. Hakim, Adv., S.N. Thakkar, Adv., Kruti M Shah, Adv.

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 300(A), 226 and 227 - Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 - Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 - Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957 - Bombay Revenue Tribunal Regulations, 1954 - Land Case - It is pertinent to note that initially, in the present petition, only the State of Gujarat was the party respondent, however, subsequently, by virtue of orders respectively passed in Civil Application for joining as party respondents, several private respondents have also been impleaded as the party-Page respondents - It is also pertinent to note that pending the petition, by way of Civil Application, the respondent-State has challenged the maintainability of the present petition and by order passed by this Court, it is ordered to be heard and decided together with the main petition - Held, Entire transaction viz. execution of Declaration Deed prior to execution of sale deed by which, land in question is distributed amongst 67 persons in proportion maximum up to 40 acres, creates doubts and appears to be with a view to avoid the application of Ceiling Act and is a well-planned act - As per the settled legal position, the Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, may not interfere the order of the Tribunal unless the Court finds that the discretion has not been properly exercised by the Tribunal or the exercise of discretion is perverse - Further, the Court may also decline the entertainment of the complaint for alleged breach of principle of natural justice when Court finds that no prejudice is caused on account of the alleged breach of principle of natural justice - In the case on hand also, no illegality, perversity and/or infirmity found in the impugned order of remand - Application dismissed.

JUDGMENT

P.P. BHATT, J.

1. Leave to amend the date of impugned order.

2. The petitioner, a private limited company registered under the Companies Act namely Kalpataru Land (Surat) Pvt. Ltd., has filed this writ petition under Articles 14, 19, 300(A), 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (for brevity, 'the Ceiling Act'), the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (for brevity, 'the Rules'), the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957 and the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Regulations, 1954 inter alia with the following prayers in para 14 of the petition:

"(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit and allow this Special Civil Application;

"Amendment carried out as per Court Order dated 13.10.2014"

IN CA NO. 8988/2014.

(AA) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article - 226 to hold and declare that the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 has no application on the subject land and the Respondent authorities may be prohibited from taking any action of any nature whatsoever under the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 vis-a-vis the land situated at Village Abhava in R.S. No. 506 paiki admeasuring approximately 1603 Acres purchased by petitioners;

(B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased in exercise of its powers under Article 226 and/or and be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the Judgment and Order of the Honourable Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Case No. TEN BS 104 of 2003 dated 15th May, 2010 at (Ann. :G - 3) in so far as it quashed the order of "the Additional Mamlatdar and Krishi Panch (Ceiling) dated 18th September, 2000 in Ceiling Case No. 1 of 2000 (Ann. 'F')";

"Amendment carried out as per Court Order dated 13.10.2014"

IN CA NO. 8988/2014

(BB) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or direction for quashing and setting aside the Order of the Respondent No. 1 dated 15th May, 2010 passed in Revision Case No. TEN BS 104 of 2003 and further be pleased to uphold the Order dated Order dated 18th September, 2000 passed by the Additional Mamlatdar and Krishi Panch (Ceiling) in Ceiling Case No. 1 of 2000";

(C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order and Judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Case No. TEN BS 104 of 2003 dated 15th May, 2010;

(D) The Hon'ble court be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

(E) Costs be awarded."

3. It is pertinent to note that initially, in the present petition, only the State of Gujarat was the party respondent, however, subsequently, by virtue of orders dated 13.10.2014 and 09.06.2016 respectively passed in Civil Application Nos. 16765 of 2010, 13509 of 2010, 4838 of 2011 and 7140 of 2015 for joining as party respondents, several private respondents have also been impleaded as the party-Page respondents.

3.1 It is also pertinent to note that pending the petition, by way of Civil Application No. 16368 of 2017, the respondent-State has challenged the maintainability of the present petition and by order dated 15.02.2018 passed by this Court, it is ordered to be heard and decided together with the main petition.

4. Facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under:

4.1 In the year 1802, Gaikwad, then Ruler of Baroda, granted "Village Abhava", Taluka: Choryasi, District: Surat in Inam to the erstwhile Nawab. Until 1949, Extracts in Form No. VII/VIIA/XII, in the revenue records of Village: Abhava reflected only old Survey No. 400 to be 'Khar', admeasuring 2763 acres,




















































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top