Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Guj) 13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.R. BRAHMBHATT, A.P. THAKER, JJ.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Nandubhai Mahasukhbhai Patel - Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 304, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449 of 2019 In R/Special Civil Application Nos. 13789, 9086, 9087, 9088, 9089, 9090 of 2017 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 2 of 2019
Decided On : 09-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Nisha Thakore, A.G.P.
For the Respondent: Ms. Trusha K. Patel.

Point of Law:
Juristic person cannot be a “Person” within the meaning of the Act. According to her, as the word “Person” in Section 2(11) of the Act has been defined, the definition of “Person” under the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 cannot be applied and a company constituted as a juristic person under the Companies Act or a co-operative society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, cannot be considered to be an agriculturist.

Headnote:
Writ petition – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Letters Patent Appeal – Clause 15 – Special Civil Application – Petitioners purchased the lands in question at different times but much from the Co-operative Societies. That at the time of processing their applications for NA Permission, consent of the petitioners was taken to deposit 10% premium amount in the context of Section 63AB of the Act and then notice was issued to them by the Mamlatdar and the petitioners have deposited such amount. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications with Special Civil Application whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed all petitions and directed the Collector to decide the application of the petitioners for N.A. Permission, the original respondents have filed all these Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal. Held – On perusal of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is crystal clear that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration each and every aspects of the matter and has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned order while quashing and setting aside the impugned instructions and directing the Collector to decide the applications of the petitioners – Applications are disposed of. (Para 25)
Facts of the Case:
Petitioners purchased the lands in question at different times but much from the Co-operative Societies. That at the time of processing their applications for NA Permission, consent of the petitioners was taken to deposit 10% premium amount in the context of Section 63AB of the Act and then notice was issued to them by the Mamlatdar and the petitioners have deposited such amount. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications with Special Civil Application whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed all petitions and directed the Collector to decide the application of the petitioners for N.A. Permission.
Finding of the Court:
On perusal of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is crystal clear that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration each and every aspects of the matter and has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned order while quashing and setting aside.
Result: Applications are disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

A.P. THAKER, J.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications No.9086 of 2017 to 9090 of 2017 with Special Civil Application No.13789 of 2017 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed all petitions and directed the Collector to decide the application of the petitioners for N.A. Permission, the original respondents have filed all these Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Considering the facts that the learned Single Judge has passed the common judgment and order dated 10.09.2018 in Special Civil Applications No.9086 of 2017 to 9090 of 2017 with Special Civil Application No.13789 of 2017, all these appeals being arising out the same common judgment and order, all these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. For the sake of brevity and convenient, the parties are referred to as per their status in main petitions.

4. In the first five matters (Special Civil Application No.9086 of 2017 to Special Civil Application No. 9090 of 2017) which are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought direction to forthwith issue Non-Agriculture Permission in respect of the land in question (which is different in each petition) without insisting to undergo any other formality under the guise of the administrative instruction dated 17.02.2017 and to hold and declare that the above instructions cannot be made applicable retrospectively to the case of the petitioners.

4.1 As stated in the petitions, the petitioners purchased the lands in question at different times but much before 30.06.2015 from the Co-operative Societies. That at the time of processing their applications for NA Permission, consent of the petitioners was taken to deposit 10% premium amount in the context of Section 63AB of the Act and then notice was issued to them by the Mamlatdar and the petitioners have deposited such amount.

4.2 In the last petition (Special Civil Application No.13789 of 2017), the petitioners have prayed following reliefs.

(a) admit and allow the captioned petition;

(b) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ/ order or direction by quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.03.2017 passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad vide CB/__/NA/Oganaj/S.no.1160/1 etc./ SR-644/2016; direct the Collector to grant the Non Agriculture use permission without considering the administrative instructions dated 17.02.2017, issued by the Revenue department, State of Gujarat, vide GNT-302013-1536-Z;

(c) quash and set aside the administrative instructions dated 17.2.2017, issued by the Revenue department, State of Gujarat, vide GNT-302013-1536-Z;

ALTERNATIVELY

Declare that the administrative instructions dated 17.02.2017, issued by the Revenue department, State of Gujarat, vide GNT-302013-1536-Z applies prospectively and hence it would not apply to the case of the petitioners;

(d) Grant any other relief as deemed fit in the interest of justice.

(e) stay the implementation of administrative instructions dated 17.02.2017, issued by the Revenue Department, State of Gujarat vide GNT-302013-1536-Z; during the pendency of the captioned petition.

4.3 in the last petition as aforesaid, the petitioners are the agriculturists and they have purchased the lands in question from the Cooperative Society by registered sale deed on 02.12.2010 i.e. before June 2015. In this case, the Mamlatdar passed order after conducting inquiry under Section 63AB validating the sale transaction in favour of the petitioners on payment of 10% premium amount and such order was reviewed and confirmed by the Deputy Collector.

5. Considering the fact that the controversy involved in the matters is the same, the facts of Letters Patent Appeal No.304 of 2019 are taken as lead matter.

6. All the petitions are relating to interpretation of the provisions of the word “Person” used in Section 63AB of the Gujarat Ten

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(Guj) 13

Cases Referred (12)