Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.
M/s. Shreeji Developers & 1 Others – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Gujarat & 3 Others – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 9584 of 2022
Decided On : 13-10-2022
Land Dispute - Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 - Land Revenue Code - Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - [MUTATION ENTRY NOS. 1832, 2570, 3788, 3873, 3995, 4037, 4050, 4114, 4165, 4166, 4167, 4168, 4169] - The petitioners challenged the order of the Deputy Town Development Officer, Vadodara, which put on hold the development permission granted to the petitioners. The dispute involved multiple mutation entries and legal proceedings related to the ownership and development of the land. The petitioners argued that they were bona fide purchasers and had invested a considerable amount in the property. The respondent No.4 raised objections against the development permission, and the respondent corporation suspended the permission. The court found that the dispute was essentially between the private parties and pertained to the property in question. The court directed the respondent corporation to give both parties an opportunity to present their case and take a fresh decision in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order of the Deputy Town Development Officer, Vadodara, which put on hold the development permission granted to the petitioners. The dispute involved multiple mutation entries and legal proceedings related to the ownership and development of the land. The petitioners argued that they were bona fide purchasers and had invested a considerable amount in the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was essentially between the private parties and pertained to the property in question. The court directed the respondent corporation to give both parties an opportunity to present their case and take a fresh decision in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues involved the ownership and development of the land, objections raised against the development permission, and the suspension of the permission by the respondent corporation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the respondent corporation had the authority to suspend the development permission and directed the corporation to give both parties an opportunity to present their case and take a fresh decision in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent corporation to give both parties an opportunity to present their case and take a fresh decision in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the Deputy Town Development Officer, Vadodara – respondent No.3 herein, whereby the respondent authority has put on hold the development permission (Rajachitthi) dated 18.02.2022.
2.1 Brief facts of the case are as such that; one Koyabhai Melabhai Rathodiya was holding the land bearing Survey Nos.5, 265, 268, 566, 583, 286, 37 & 99 situated at Village Vadsar, Taluka and District Vadodara.
2.2 Since, said Koyabhai Melabhal was unable to render service to the State because of his old age, an order dated 05.12.1958 was passed bearing Taluka Vatan No.1967 of 1958 mutating the name of his son - Mohanbhai Koyabhai Rathodiya in respect of said lands held by Koyabhai Melabhai on the condition that he will not be entitled to mortgage, sell or gift the land and on further condition that he continues to provide service which was being provided by his father Koyabhai Melabhai.
In view of the above order dated 15.09.1958, the effect was given in the revenue record vide mutation entry No.513 and the same was later certified on 24.01.1962.
In or around the year 1961, Koyabhai Melabhai passed away and his name was deleted pursuant to mutation entry No.513, but, i.e. Mohanbhai Koyabhai Rathodiya, Ramabhai Koyabhai Rathodiya & others names of legal heirs of Koyabhai Melabhai were not brought on record.
2.3 In view of Government Notification No.V.1.W.1061 dated 31.07.1962, the persons in service were relieved, therefore, the name of the State was mutated in the revenue record in respect of the aforesaid survey numbers, as first name in first record of right (Pahela Hak ma’) and the name of Mohanbhai Koyabhai Rathodiya was retained as second name in second record of right (‘Bija Hak ma’) below the line. The relevant mutation entry in respect of the above notification was passed on 21.09.1962 being Entry No.656.
2.4 On 12.07.1988, Mohanbhai Koyabhai Rathodiya died, and thereafter, names of his legal heirs i.e. Shantilal Mohanbhai, Arvindbhai Mohanbhai, Janaben Mohanbhai, Savitaben Mohanbhai, Shardaben Mohanbhai and Laxmiben Mohanbhai were entered into the revenue record vide mutation entry No.1832 on 10.08.1988 as joint occupants and the entry No.1832 was mutated and certified on 30.11.1988.
2.5 Thereafter, one Ramanbhai Ramabhai Rathodiya, son of Ramabhai Koyabhai Rathodiya preferred revenue proceedings before the Deputy Collector, Vadodara by challenging Entry No.1832.
The Deputy Collector, vide its order dated 30.04.1993, rejected the revision application.
The said order came to be challenged by Ramanbhai Rathodiya by filing RTS Appeal before the Collector, Vadodara, which also came to be rejected by the Collector, Vadodara vide order dated 08.09.1993.
Being aggrieved by the said order, Ramanbhai Rathodiya preferred revision application before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, which also came to be rejected vide order dated 12.09.2001.
2.6 Said Ramanbhai Ramabhai Rathodiya filed Special Civil Suit No. 12 of 1992 before the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara against Shantilal Mohanbhai Rathodiya, other legal heirs of Mohanbhai Koyabhai Rathodiya, Bhaijibhai Koyabhai Rathodiya and others. In the said proceedings, it appears that pursuant to the consent terms purportedly arrived at between the parties, a consent decree was passed in the said suit on 16.07.1993.
As per the consent terms, 1/3rd share in the said properties comes to Bhaijibhai Koyabhai Rathodiya, 1/3rd share comes to heirs of Mohanbhai Koyabhai Rathodiya and remaining 1/3rd share comes to the heirs of Ramanbhai Koyabhai Rathodiya.
Further, on basis of the above referred consent decree, mutation entry no. 2570 was mutated in the revenue record on 20.12.1996.
This mutation entry was, however, rejected on the ground that the land was of new tenure and no permission of competent authority, as stipulated under Section 5 of th
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent corporation has the authority to suspend development permission and must provide both parties with an opportunity to present th....
Point of law: Since notice has been issued after 78 years, it is completely beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, the notice itself would be a nullity and without any jurisdiction. When the....
The challenge to the permission under Section 54 of the Ordinance paled into insignificance as the sale deed was already executed and challenged before the Civil Court, and the authorities were not o....
The grant of N.A. permission is based on the 'holding' and 'occupant' of the land, and the final outcome of a civil suit binds the parties involved.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with order passed by learned Single Judge in Captioned Special Civil Application appellants beg to prefer present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
