SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Guj) 1194

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, NIRZAR S. DESAI, HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, JJ.
Dip Co.Op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Through Purshottam S Patel – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondent
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 34 of 2008 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4430 of 1992 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2014 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 34 of 2008 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 492 of 2014 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4430 of 1992 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2016 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 492 of 2014 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4430 of 1992 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 3 of 2014 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 492 of 2014 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4430 of 1992 With R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 243 of 2012
Decided on : 19-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellant : MR DEVAN PARIKH, LD. SENIOR COUNSEL, MR MIHIR THAKORE, LD. SENIOR COUNSEL with MR.PARTHIV SHAH
For the Respondent: MR.K.M.ANTANI, AGP, MR MA BUKHARI, MR SACHIN D VASAVADA

The court held that statutory compliance under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act is mandatory for valid dispossession, emphasizing that mere vesting does not equate to possession.

Headnote:(A) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 3, 4, 10(3), 10(5), and 10(6) - Repeal Act, 1999 - Dispute over land ownership and possession - The court addressed conflicting decisions regarding the status of land under the ULC Act and the implications of the Repeal Act. The court emphasized that mere vesting of land does not equate to possession without compliance with statutory procedures. (Paras 6.1, 6.2, 6.18)

(B) Legal principles - The requirement of notice under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) is mandatory, and failure to comply invalidates dispossession actions. The court reaffirmed that actual possession must be established for the State to claim rights over the land. (Paras 6.6, 6.19)

Facts of the case:
The dispute involved land purchased by a cooperative housing society, with conflicting orders regarding its status under the ULC Act. The society claimed possession was never taken by the State, while the State argued otherwise.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the State failed to establish lawful possession and that the society was entitled to the benefits of the Repeal Act.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of dispossession actions and the applicability of the ULC Act to the land in question.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that statutory compliance is essential for valid dispossession, and the mere vesting of land does not confer possession rights to the State.

Result: Appeals allowed; the judgment of the learned Single Judge quashed.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)

1. These proceedings viz. the two LPAs and the PIL have been placed before us, in light of differing decisions by the two Hon’ble Judges constituting a bench which decided the LPAs and the PIL by order dated 16.04.2020. One of the Hon’ble Ld. Judges (Hon’ble Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala, as he then was) allowed the appeals reversing the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.10.2007-30.10.2007, whereas, the other Hon’ble learned Judge of the coordinate bench (Hon’ble Mr.Justice A.C.Rao, as he then was) dismissed the appeals. Hence, this reference.

2. Facts in brief are as under:

2.1 For the brevity of this order, the facts as set out by the judgement dated 16.04.2020 read as under:

    “A. The subject-matter of dispute in the present litigation is a parcel of land bearing Survey No.314/1&2 situated at the village Sola, Taluka Dascroi, District Ahmedabad. Before the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the ULC Act') came into force, the subject land was admeasuring 12141 sq.meters. On 11th December 1975, a registered sale-deed was executed by the original owner (Gandabhai Mangalbhai Patel as the 'Karta' of Mangaldas Cheladas Patel, HUF) in favour of Shri Harshvardhan Hathising Shah and Shri Mohanlal Tripathi in their capacity as the promoters of the appellant-Society, namely The Deep Cooperative Housing Society Limited, for the sale of the subject land referred to above. A portion of the said land admeasuring 15-Gunthas was not sold by the original owner to Shri Shah and Shri Tripathi. A specific condition was incorporated in the said registered sale-deed dated 11th December 1975 that the land referred to in the sale-deed was agreed to be sold to the promoters of the proposed Deep Cooperative Housing Society Limited, i.e. the appellant herein. Clause (11) of the sale-deed dated 11th December 1975 reads as under :

    “11. This land under this document has been determined to be sold to you as promoters of Deep Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (proposed) and therefore you have acquired right to assign the property under this document i.e. said lands in favour of the said proposed society or the Registered Cooperative Housing Society of the said name.”

    B. With the coming into force of the ULC Act, 1976, the proposed Deep Cooperative Housing Society Limited, through one of its promoters, viz. Shri Shah, filed a statement dated 10th September 1976 under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act before the competent authority declaring the land held on behalf of the proposed Society. It was pointed out in the said statement that the land bearing Survey No.314/1&2 was to be used for the purpose of constructing dwelling units for the members of the Society.

    C. On 24th May 1979, an order was passed by the State Government under Section 20 of the ULC Act granting exemption to the land bearing Survey No.314/1&2 in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III of the ULC Act as the same was agricultural land. Although the order dated 24th May 1979 has been referred to in the order dated 5th March 1988 passed by the competent authority and Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Ahmedabad, yet the same is not on record. It is the case of the appellant that despite a request made under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the said exemption order has not been provided till this date by the State Government.

    D. On 15th February 1980, the appellant-Society came to be registered under Section 9(1) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It was given registration No.GH/8068.

    E. On 5th March 1988, an order came to be passed by the respondent no.2 herein, i.e. the competent authority and Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Ahmedabad, on the form filled up by the original owners declaring 4553 sq.meters of land of Survey No.314/1&2 as exempted from the provisions of the ULC Act. Such exemption was granted as the land was agricultural land.

    F. On 23 rd June 1989, an order came to be

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top