Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.
Shankarbhai Arjanbhai Maharaj - Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat & Others - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application Nos. 13853, 13855, 13856 of 2017
Decided On : 10-10-2022
Land Allotment - Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Section 79A - 10.10.2022 - The court discussed the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, particularly Section 79A, which allows for the initiation of proceedings for the possession of land. The court highlighted the conditions of land allotment, the obligation of the allottee to hand over possession, and the consequences of breaching these conditions. The court emphasized the importance of reasoned orders and the principles of natural justice in decision-making by administrative and judicial bodies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's ancestor was allotted infertile land in Kachchh, which was not cultivated. The petitioner was later allotted land in Tharad for rehabilitation. The revenue authorities initiated proceedings to take possession of the land in Kachchh, alleging breach of conditions. The petitioner contested the allegations, citing communications to the authorities and the absence of evidence of breach.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allottees had brought to the notice of the authorities the illegal disposal of land and had not benefited from it. The court criticized the unreasoned orders of the revenue authorities and emphasized the lapse on the part of the authorities in taking action. The court concluded that the orders directing vesting of the land in the State Government were unjust and contrary to the policy of resettling refugees.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged breach of land allotment conditions, the inaction of the revenue authorities, and the consequences of the orders directing vesting of the land in the State Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the unreasoned orders of the revenue authorities were in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized the importance of reasoned orders and highlighted the lapse on the part of the authorities in taking action against the illegal disposal of land. The court also considered the policy of resettling refugees and the nature of the alleged lapse by the allottees.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions, quashed and set aside the orders directing vesting of the land in the State Government, and emphasized the unjust nature of the orders in light of the policy of resettling refugees.
JUDGMENT :
This Court, vide common oral judgment dated 10.10.2022, has disposed of writ petitions being Special Civil Application nos.2908 of 2014 and allied matters. The captioned writ petitions being identical, barring date of the orders passed by the revenue authorities, are also being disposed of on the same lines by this common oral judgment. Details of challenge in the captioned writ petitions are set out for ready reference :
(ii) In Special Civil Application no.13855 of 2017, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.6.2012 passed by the Assistant Collector, Tharad as well as the order dated 8.8.2016 passed by the Collector, Banaskantha; and
(iii) Similarly, in Special Civil Application no.13856 of 2017, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.5.2012 passed by the Assistant Collector, Tharad as well as order dated 21.7.2016 passed by the Collector, Banaskantha.
2. Issue rule, returnable forthwith. Mr J.K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.
3. Tersely stated are the facts, as culled out from the lead matter being Special Civil Application no.13853 of 2016. The facts involved in rest of the petitions are almost identical, except the survey numbers.
3.1. The ancestor of the petitioner was refugee and was allotted land situated at survey no.96 paiki at taluka Rapar, district Kachchh. Since the land was infertile, the ancestor of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the allottee or the petitioner, wherever the context warrants”) did not take possession and requested the concerned authorities to allot the land at some other place. The petitioner shifted to village Tharad, district Banaskantha, where, the allottee was allotted the land in Santhani of survey no.23/1B/p for the purpose of rehabilitation, vide order dated 28.04.1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the land in question”). Since then, the allottee was residing at Tharad and have been cultivating the land in question.
3.2. Apropos the inquiry, the District Collector, Kachchh, passed an order dated 13.5.2011, directing restoration of the possession of the land, which was allotted at taluka Rapar, district Kachchh and the State Government so also, the Mamlatdar were directed to take possession. To the shock and surprise of the petitioners, a notice came to be issued under Section 79A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”), requiring the petitioners to vacate the land in question at Tharad, district Banaskantha.
3.3. The petitioner appeared before the Assistant Collector and pointed out about the allotment of the land at Bambhansar and also the fact that since the land was not cultivable, the possession was never taken. The petitioner also pointed out that since last 20 years, the petitioner is staying at Tharad and requested to continue his name. It has also been pointed out in the proceedings before the Collector, Kachchh that the land at Bambhansar has not been sold by them and forged sale deeds on the basis of forged power of attorney have been executed. It was urged that no breach of condition has been committed and therefore, the name of the petitioner, be continued. The Assistant Collector, disregarding the stand of the petitioner, passed an order dated 25.6.2012 as he was of the opinion that the allottee was obliged to handover the possession of the land at district Kachchh; however, the petitioner failed to do so. Also, the land has been sold and therefore, the conditions enumerated in the allotment order of the year 1988 have been breached. The Assistant Collector concluded that the petitioners have not got the land cancelled and
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the orders of administrative authorities must be reasoned and in compliance with principles of natural justice, and any unreasoned order would....
Unjust and improper vesting of land in the State Government, based on unproven allegations and unreasoned orders, is in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the policy of re....
The court emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances and intentions of the land allottees, especially in cases involving resettlement of refugees, and held that the orders directing v....
The necessity of reasoned orders and the illegality of arbitrary orders vesting the land in the State Government under Section 79A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.
Deputy Collector could not have invoked suo motu jurisdiction after one year from the date of passing of any order passed by the Mamlatdar.
Once a person is selling away the land in question, he cannot maintain litigation as he has lost interest, title and that being the position
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
