Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Guj) 95

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VINEET KOTHARI, GITA GOPI, JJ.
CHANDRALAL BULCHAND AMBAVANI & others - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & others - Respondent
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1411 of 2016
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9559 of 1995
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 2 of 2016
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1411 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 3 of 2016
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1411 of 2016
Decided On : 22-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR PM BHATT, G B PATEL
For the Respondent: MR MEET THAKKARM, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MR PARTHIV A BHATT

Point of Law: Section 21 of the Act and save the said land from the rigour and scheme of the 1976 Act of taking over of excess land in the larger public interest and therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in rejecting the said contention as well.

Headnote:
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 8(4),10(5), 10(3), 23,6 - Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 - challenge – Sale Deed - Counsel for petitioner submits that order under Section 20 of ULC Act which empowered Khumanbhai and his Legal Representatives to sell land in question on the basis of such Section 20 order of 1979, were entitled to challenge proceedings as once the exemption under Section 20 is there, excess land in question could not have been so declared under provisions of Section 8(4) of ULC Act nor Notification could be issued under Section 10(3) of ULC Act and, therefore, Writ Petition filed in 1995 by the Appellants after 8 years of passing of that order in 1989 was justified and, therefore, the present Intra-Court Appeal of 2016 deserves to be allowed.
Finding of the court : Court opinion that learned Single Judge was right in distinguishing said judgment as it is not a case before us where no notice under Section 10(5) of Act was issued to land owner - On contrary it is admitted position that such notice was given to land owner - Later judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court fully explained purport of decision in case in case of where even Section 10(5) notice was not given and still taking over possession was held as valid as quoted in extenso by learned Single Judge and that in our respectful understanding clinches issue in favour of State - Court are neither finding anything different or new valid or of a substance to take even a slightest possible different view from one taken by learned Single Judge - On contrary we find that appellants a series of so called bona fide Purchasers have kept this lis alive against State Government and those 83 allotteed who were allotted their lands out of such excess land vested in State Government being kept in dark by present Appellants - They have dealt with land in sequence of Sale Deeds completely ignoring concluded proceedings under provisions of ULC Act as if those proceedings had no meaning for them -This is precisely what we wish to put down with strong iron hands of justice and such litigants if they were to be allowed to abuse process of law unpunished we feel more such litigants will join their queue
Result: Civil Applications also stand dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

VINEET KOTHARI, J.

1. This Intra Court Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.8.2016 dismissing the Special Civil Application No.9559 of 1995 filed by Baldevbhai Shivabhai Patel through his Legal Representatives and two subsequent Purchasers of the land in question (Chandralal Mulchand Ambavani and Jyotiprasad Devkinandan Chiripal).

2. The proceedings under challenge are under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the ULC Act' for short) and the sole argument on which the entire Letters Patent Appeal is based, is on the anvil of one alleged order under Section 20 of the ULC Act, by which the original owner – Khumanbhai Vanabhai Vagri is said to have been permitted under the said Act to retain the agricultural land in question and also sell it further, however, for the agricultural purpose only. The said Khumanbhai is said to have sold the land in question to the Respondent No.3 – Original Petitioner No.1 (Baldevbhai Shivabhai Patel) under a Sale Deed dated 5.7.1979, who, instead of doing agricultural on the same, is said to have further sold the land in question by another Sale Deed dated 17.1.2007 in favour of Vishnubhai Patel and Balvantbhai Patel, who, in turn, have sold the land further to the Appellant Nos.2 and 3 – Chandralal Bulchand Ambavani and Jyotiprasad Devakinandan vide Sale Deed dated 4.1.2008. Thus, a series of Sale Deeds were executed in respect of the same land bearing Survey No.387/2 situated at Village Zundal.

3. On the other hand, the original owner – Khumanbhai through his Legal Representatives represented before the Competent Authority in the ULC proceedings and the Respondent No.2 – Deputy Collector, U.L.C., Ahmedabad passed an order under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act on 21.12.1987 declaring 3947 Sq. Mtrs. of said Survey No.387/2 belonging to Khumanbhai Vaghri as excess vacant land under the provisions of the ULC Act. Thereafter, the Notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was issued on 30.6.1989. Consequently, Section 10(5) Notice to handover possession was issued by the Competent Authority to the Legal Representatives of Khumanbhai on 13.7.1990 and through Panchnama process, the possession is said to have taken in August, 1990. Thereafter, the State Government under Section 23 of the ULC Act is said to have allotted the plots of the land on such excess land vested in the State Government in favour of 83 allottees vide order dated 8.10.1991 / 17.12.1991 as per the List produced on record at AnnexureR10. Thus, while on the one hand, the Competent Authorities took the proceedings under ULC Act and the land upon vesting in the State stood allotted to 83 persons, who are not parties before us, the present writ proceedings were initiated by Baldevbhai Shivabhai Patel, the first Purchaser under Sale Deed dated 5.7.1979 represented by his Legal Representatives even though he executing Sale Deed in favour of Vishnubhai Patel and Balvantbhai Patel on 17.1.2007, who, in turn, further sold the land in question on 4.1.2008 as aforesaid. Thus, a person, who had actually no interest in the land at that point of time, initiated these legal proceedings before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. As stated above, the claim was based on an alleged exemption given under Section 20 of the ULC Act vide order dated 19.4.1979 which the learned Single Judge, upon perusal of the original record summoned, found that no such order under Section 20 of the ULC Act was on record of the Competent Authorities nor discussed anywhere and except a mention in Reference Item No.2 of the preamble of said order, which also was found to be scored out in the original order produced before the learned Single Judge, was made the basis of this entire litigation. The learned Single Judge, therefore, found that not only the claim based on Section 20 exemption / permission to sell for agricultural purpose was available to the present Writ Petitioner / Respondent No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Guj) 95

Point of Law: Section 21 of the Act and save the said land from the rigour and scheme of the 1976 Act of taking over of excess land in the larger public interest and therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in rejecting the said contention as well.

Cases Referred (2)