Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Guj) 395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Vineet Kothari, B.N. Karia, JJ.
Biharidan Jivabhai Gadhvi, IPS – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and others – Respondents
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1249 of 2014 In R/Special Civil Application No. 2248 of 1992
Decided On : 30-06-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S.N. Shelat, Senior Counsel with, Mr Hriday Buch, Counsel and Mr Shital R Patel
For the Respondent: Mr. Soaham Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader

Point of Law: Applicability of Prevention of Corruption Act was not restricted to local authorities but referred to any public body having public or statutory duties to perform and which earned on activities of public interest. In that behalf, House of Lords, had held that the Prevention of Corruption Act was not restricted to local authorities; it was applicable to any body which has public and statutory duties to perform and bodies which perform those duties and carry out their transactions for the benefit of the public and not for private profit

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 - Gujarat Panchayat Act - Sections 96(4), 16 or 17(2) - Land Revenue Code Sections 38 and 211 - Possess meagre land - Land for growing Coconut Plants - Permanent Lease was made by another District Collector - Seeking compensation Petitioner claimed allotment of said land for growing Coconut Plants under State Government Scheme Notification claiming himself to be an Ex-serviceman - Joined directly as an IPS Officer and was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police relevant point of time of allotment of said land to him under Policy under the order of District Collector, giving a lease of 20 years land admeasuring 8.29 acres in Survey and then another lease - Later on a Permanent Lease was made by another District Collector both these parcels of land in favour of Petitioner/Appellant - Allotment was made upon a Resolution of Magod Gram Panchayat effect that it has no objection if land in question was granted in favour of Petitioner and Gram Panchayat would not require any compensation for the same
Finding of the Court: Petitioner in Special Civil Application land in question in Survey could not be allotted and said land was ‘Gauchar land’ but when such application was filed by Respondent who is Appellant/Petitioner before us and was Respondent No.3 in Special Civil Application Gram Panchayat immediately agreed and gave its ‘No Objection’ for allotment in his favour - Learned Single Judge as learned Single Judge found that since Petitioner served only Territorial Army was specifically excluded from definition of ex-serviceman - Application for allotment was not maintainable – Court do not consider it necessary to discuss legal provisions of Revenue Law in present case to a large extent, because are of considered opinion that various orders of Court and learned Secretary have quoted above profusely facts and legal position in great detail and there is no need to add to the bulk of it – Court are of considered and clear opinion that there is absolutely no merit in claim and case of Petitioner/Appellant and present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed again with costs which we quantify - Petitioner in the Cost Fund of Legal Services Authority for legal aid to the poor, with a further direction to mesne profits at rate month from - actually dispossessed from the land in question and the same is handed over back to the Gram Panchayat which should be done as within six months from today
Result: Ordered Accordingly

JUDGMENT :

VINEET KOTHARI, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 13.10.2014 of the learned Single Judge (Coram: Rajesh Shukla, J.) dismissing Special Civil Application No.2248 of 1992 filed by the Appellant/Petitioner.

2. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition in the second round of litigation by the Petitioner in respect of the land situated in Survey Nos.550 and 552, admeasuring 68 acres in Village : Magod, Taluka & District: Valsad.

3. The Petitioner claimed the allotment of the said land for growing Coconut Plants under the State Government Scheme of 1965, vide Notification dated 20.03.1965 claiming himself to be an Ex-serviceman, having served in Army as Captain, between 1965 and 1973 and upon being released from the Army, he joined directly as an IPS Officer and was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bulsar at the relevant point of time of allotment of the said land to him under 1965 Policy under the order of the District Collector, Valsad (Ms. Mrudulaben Vashi, IAS) dated 05.12.1981 giving a lease of 20 years land admeasuring 8.29 acres in Survey No.550 and then another lease of 8.04 acres land in Survey No.552 vide another order dated 27.01.1982. Later on a Permanent Lease was made by another District Collector (Mr.Praful Kumar Thakkar, IAS) on 11.05.1987 for both these parcels of land in favour of the Petitioner/Appellant.

4. The said allotment was made upon a Resolution of Magod Gram Panchayat dated 22.11.1980 to the effect that it has no objection if the land in question was granted in favour of the Petitioner and the Gram Panchayat would not require any compensation for the same. It may be noted here that the land in question was Gauchar (grazing) land as recorded in the Revenue records and was transferred to the Gram Panchayat itself in pursuance of the order of the Mamlatdar vide Order No.4-PSR/67 dated 21.09.1953 in pursuance of the order of District Deputy Collector No.LND/W.S.391 dated 14.09.1953 and the revenue entry for the said Transfer in favour of Magod Gram Panchayat for Survey Nos.467, 490 (with which this case is not concerned) and Survey Nos.550 and 552 (involved in present case) was recorded as under:

“Record of Right (Village Form No.6)

Village: Magod,

Taluka: Bulsar

Serial No. of the entry

Nature of right

Survey No. and Pot-Hissa No. of the land mutated

Signature or remarks of the Inspecting Officer

Date: 10.11.1953

Transfer.

The land shown in the margin was running as Gauchar. But as per the G.R. of the Government, since the said land is to be entrusted to the Gram Panchayat, as per the order No.4-P.S.R./67 dated 21.9.53 of the Mamlatdar, pursuant to the order No.L.N.D./W.S. 391 dated 14.9.1953 of the District Deputy Collector, entry is effected regarding handing over of possession of the said land together with trees and roads existing therein.

467

490

550

552

(Four)

Certified. Sd/- Extra Aval Karkoon. 8.1.1954 Bulsar. Resolution of the Government No.251/9.6.50.

Sd/-

Police Patel

Sd/- Illegible Talati

Copied from the original.

Sd/- Illegible

Talati-cum-Mantri,

Magod, Taluka Bulsar.”

5. The problem arose when the said allotment in favour of the Petitioner was recalled and revoked by a suo motu order dated 09.09.1991 of the Principal Secretary on the ground that the allotment of land to the Petitioner was not in accordance with 1965 Policy of the Government, nor the Gauchar (grazing) land could be so allotted to the Petitioner who failed to satisfy the criteria of person being Below Poverty Line, as he was IPS Officer directly appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police after being released from Army nor the Gauchar land could be so allotted as ‘Government Waste Land’. The relevant extract of the order dated 09.09.1991 setting aside the Collector’s allotment orders

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Guj) 395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADVineet Kothari, B.N. Karia, JJ.Biharidan Jivabhai Gadhvi, IPS – AppellantVersusState of Gujarat and others – RespondentsR/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1249 of 2014 In R/Special Civil Application No. 2248 of 1992Decided On : 30-06-2021

Cases Referred (7)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Vineet Kothari, B.N. Karia, JJ.
Biharidan Jivabhai Gadhvi, IPS – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and others – Respondents
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1249 of 2014 In R/Special Civil Application No. 2248 of 1992
Decided On : 30-06-2021