Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.
Yaswant Makanbhai Patel & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 12807 of 2023 With Civil Application (For Vacating Interim Relief) No. 1 of 2024 With Civil Application (For Joining Party) No. 2 of 2024
Decided On : 18-04-2024
Land Allotment - Rehabilitation Scheme - 1973 Notification, Urban Development - 2002 Order - Court's Interpretation and Conclusion
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, flood-affected persons, sought re-allotment of land acquired by the government in 1973 for rehabilitation. They claimed possession since 1974 and challenged the 2002 order changing land use. The court found no evidence of actual allotment and dismissed the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the petitioners failed to utilize the allotted land and that the 2002 order changing land use was valid. It held that the petitioners' possession was not proven and dismissed the petition, refusing to extend interim relief.
Issues: Validity of land allotment for rehabilitation, change of land use, and possession of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no evidence of actual allotment to the petitioners and upheld the validity of the 2002 order changing land use. It concluded that the petitioners' possession was not proven and dismissed the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the interim relief was vacated. The court refused to extend the interim relief and disposed of related civil applications.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Senior advocate Mr. Jal Unwala with learned advocate Ms. Tejal Vashi for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Mitesh Amin with learned AGP Mr. Kanva Antani for the respondents – State in main matter and learned advocate Mr. Nisha M. Parikh for the applicant in Civil Application (for joining party) No. 2 of 2024.
2. As today, two Civil Applications - Civil Application (for vacating interim relief) No. 1 of 2024 and Civil Application (for joining party) No. 2 of 2024 are listed before this Court, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the main matter was taken up for final hearing. Hence, Registry is directed to list the main matter being Special Civil Application No. 12807 of 2023 for hearing today itself.
3. As the parties have agreed for final hearing of the main matter, issue RULE. Learned AGP Mr. Kanva Antani waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents – State.
4. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-
(b) issue appropriate, writ, order or direction to the respondents to reallot same land to the petitioners or suitable lands to the petitioners.
(c) issue appropriate, writ, order or direction to the respondents to allot suitable alternative lands to the petitioners before taking the possession of the said land by following the procedure in accordance to law.
(d) issue appropriate, writ, order or direction of restraining the respondents from forcefully taking possession, dispossess/evict or taking possession of the land bearing Block No. 54, old Survey No. 26 and 29 (1 + 2) situated at village Rundh, Taluka Majura, District Surat.
(e) PENDING ADMISSION, FINAL HEARING & DISPOSAL of this petition, direct the respondents for maintaining status quo on the land bearing Block No. 42/b and 54, old Survey No. 26 and 29 (1 + 2) situated at village Rundh, Taluka Majura, District Surat,
(f) grant such other and further relief as thought fit in the interest of justice.
(g) This Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order dated 06.09.2023, passed by Collector, Surat to extend to the land in question not been allocated to other petitioners which is annexed at annexure R2.
(h) This Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside communication no. CCRI/0034/03/2024 dated 04.03.2024 and thereby be pleased to regrant and allot the land to the present petitioners and thereby be pleased to confirm the original allotment notification dated 21.04.1973 in favour of the petitioners.
5. At the outset, it was submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal Unwala appearing for the petitioners that a draft amendment dated 04.04.2024 is placed on record and the same may be granted.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Mitesh Amin appearing for the respondents – State has raised strong objection against the grant of the aforesaid draft amendment. However, considering the fact that the main matter is being taken up for hearing and as learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala does not have any objection, if the draft amendment is opposed on merits, the same is granted and to be carried out forthwith.
7. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are stated as under:-
7.1. It is the case of the petitioners as canvassed by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala is that in the year 1964, the entire village Rundh was ruined and badly affected by the heavy flood and thereafter, the State Government floated scheme to extend shelter and help to the affected persons for rehabilitation and for the said purpose, some land was acquired by the Government Notification dated 21.04.1973. The present petitioners 54 in number are the flood affected persons and as per the scheme the Collector, Surat vide order dated 01.02.1974 allotted plots to 54 persons of Village Rundh by making plotting on the land an
The judgment establishes the importance of proving actual land allotment and possession in cases of rehabilitation schemes and the validity of administrative orders changing land use.
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....
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 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....
The failure to establish lawful possession and the invalidity of the allotment order led to the dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing jurisdictional limits in civil suits regarding land allotments.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a reasonable opportunity for the parties to present their case.
A valid land allotment must be canceled before a subsequent allotment can be deemed lawful, reaffirming the plaintiffs' ownership rights and possession under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms....
before making the allotment the State Authorities were required to set apart the land for access to the lands of the khatedar tenants, their dhani and the public utilities and the entries
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
