Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Guj) 403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VINEET KOTHARI, B.N. KARIA, JJ.
Bavabhai Tapubhai Patel - Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Other - Respondents
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 515 of 2007 In R/Special Civil Application No. 10914 of 2002 With Civil Application (For Extension Of Interim Relief) No. 2 of 2019
Decided on : 30-06-2021

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mrs Sangeeta Pahwa, Learned Advocate For Thakkar And Pahwa Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr Krutik Parikh, adv

Point of Law: The appellants, a series of so called bona fide Purchasers, have kept this lis alive against the State Government and those 83 allottees, who were allotted their lands out of such excess land vested in the State Government being kept in dark by the present Appellants. They have dealt with the land in sequence of Sale Deeds completely ignoring concluded proceedings under the provisions of the ULC Act as if those proceedings had no meaning for them. This is precisely what we wish to put down with the strong iron hands of justice and such litigants if they were to be allowed to abuse the process of law unpunished, we feel, more such litigants will join their queue. The another reason which makes Appellants before court disentitled to any relief is their locus standi. The Writ Petitioner based his claim on an order of exemption under Section 20 of the ULC Act in favour of their Vendor, which order was not even still born on the record of the Competent Authority and except a reference of the same at Serial No.2 in the preamble part of the order of the Competent Authority under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, which reference at Serial No.2 was also found upon verification by the learned Single Judge to have been struck off, there was absolutely no material on record to claim such exemption under Section 20 of the ULC Act.

Headnote:
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 33 , 10(5) , 10(3) ,9 and 8(3) - Repeal Act. – Section 3 - Factum of possession of land - To poor and needy people - Appellant-petitioner on to handover possession of such excess land of 30 days and on possession of same was taken by State Authorities with map drawn and prepared - Appeal against order of Competent Authority under Section 33 of Act was also dismissed by Appellate Tribunal on against which present appellant -Petitioner Patel filed Special Civil Application which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge of Court on said Special Civil Application order of Competent Authority determining surplus land of - Tribunal’s order in Appeal/56/1994 was challenged by son –
Finding of the Court:
present case and is of little help to Appellants - Petitioners before us - Rival contentions of Appellants - Petitioners and State, as noted by Coordinate Division Bench in case of (Supra), are quoted below for ready reference - Court by filing multiple litigations for same cause and appropriate action therefore deserves to be taken against appellant in this regard - present order dismissing Letter Patent Appeal on merits be placed also on record of Letters Patent Appeal for perusal and consideration by, where the said Letters Patent Appeal is said to be pending - We further direct State Government to furnish compliance status Report of land utilization along with site photographs and documents of allotment if any made with respect to case as well as aforesaid all recent judgments of Division Bench of Court referred above, rendered since till now within two months positively in case and the said Report be placed for perusal in Chamber on -Aforesaid detailed discussions of factual as well as legal aspects of matter, we are of considered opinion that present appeal has no merit and none of contentions raised by learned counsel for appellant deserves acceptance and learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was right and justified in rejecting writ petition. Letters Patent Appeal filed by landholder is dismissed. No order as to costs –
Result: present Civil Application

JUDGMENT :

VINEET KOTHARI, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is in the second round of litigation by the land holder - Shri Bavabhai Tapubhai Patel, Morbi Road, Rajkot, aggrieved by a short order passed by the learned Single Judge on 08.12.2006 (Coram: P.B. Majmudar, J.) dismissing Special Civil Application No.10914 of 2003 on the basis of the order dated 08.03.2002 passed by the Secretary (L.R.) (Mr.S.C. Sanehi), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, on 08.03.2002, in pursuance of an order dated 15.10.2001 in Special Civil Application No.704 of 2001 regarding the factum of possession of the land situated in Survey No.106 of Morbi Road, Rajkot Taluka, which is the subject matter of present litigation under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “ULC Act”).

2. The said Act enacted in 1976 was repealed with effect from 30.03.1999. The said Act was enacted with the object to takeover the excess/surplus land of the land holders in urban limits for its utilization for the purpose of giving the same to poor and needy people and other public purposes.

3. This Court recently had occasion to deal with the several such cases and has decided some of the controversies and issues under the said Act in the some judgments, to which a reference will be made hereinafter, once the litigative history of present appeal and the facts in brief are narrated hereinbelow:

4. The facts in nutshell are as under:

4.1 The father of appellant - Bavabhai Patel viz. Tapubhai Patel was holder of land admeasuring 13557 sq. mtrs., which was covered under the provisions of the ULC Act, and therefore, upon the said Act being enacted in 1976, proceedings under Section 8 (3) of the Act was initiated on 22.07.1986 by the Competent Authority which culminated in the order dated 02.01.1987 declaring 12284.80 sq. mtrs. as excess/surplus land beyond the ceiling limits, and thereafter, the final order was passed under Section 9 of the Act, a declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act was issued on 30.09.1989 which was published on 05.04.1990 in Government Gazette, Part-I. A notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued to the appellant-petitioner on 16.04.1990 to handover the possession of such excess land of 12284.80 sq. mtrs. within 30 days and on 13.02.1996, the possession of the same was taken by the State Authorities with the map drawn and Panchnama prepared.

4.2 The appeal against the order of the Competent Authority under Section 33 of the Act was also dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on 30.11.1994 against which present appellant -petitioner - Bavabhai Tapubhai Patel filed Special Civil Application No.2439 of 1995 which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: A.N. Divecha, J.) on 23.06.1995 (Page Nos.251-252 of paper-book of the LPA). In the said Special Civil Application No.2439 of 1995, the order of Competent Authority dated 20.12.1986 determining the surplus land of 12284.80 sq. mtrs. as well as the Tribunal’s order dated 30.11.1994 in Appeal No.Rajkot/56/1994 was challenged by son - Bavabhai Tapubhai Patel.

4.3 Another appeal came to be filed by son of Bavabhai Patel viz. Jayantilal Bavabhai Patel challenging the same orders of Competent Authority and Tribunal which Special Civil Application No.2461 of 1995 also came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on same date i.e. 23.06.1995 by the same learned Single Judge. Thus, both Special Civil Application Nos.2439 of 1995 and 2461 of 1995 filed by son of grandson of the land holder Tapubhai assailing the orders of Competent Authority and Tribunal were rejected by the learned Single Judge.

Both of them filed Letters Patent Appeal against the orders of the learned Single Judge and were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court.

4.4 The second round of litigation was initiated by present appellant-petitioner viz. Bavabhai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Guj) 403

Cases Referred (18)