SUNITA AGARWAL, PRANAV TRIVEDI
Babubhai Mafatbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)
1. Present appeal preferred under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent is assailing the legality and validity of the Judgment dated 10.3.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 18463 of 2015.
2. The prayers in the writ petition was to declare the allotment of land admeasuring 1037.72 sq. mtrs and 593.68 sq. mtrs of land from petitioner's land bearing revenue Survey No. 702, Village: Makarba, District: Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed land' for short) as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Further prayers were made to quash and set-aside the allotment orders dated 4.6.2013, 19.8.2013 and 23.1.2014. It was further prayed to declare that the possession of the land in question was not taken by the State authorities legally and, therefore, they be restrained to take possession of the land admeasuring around 1330 sq. mtrs of survey No. 702/2.
3. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition by way of impugned order which is now assailed in the present appeal.
4. The facts which has led to filing of the writ petition and consequently the present appeal are as under:
4
The court upheld the validity of the allotment of excess land, ruling that failure to follow proper procedure under the Urban Land Ceiling Act did not negate the State's possession rights.
An order declaring land surplus issued in the name of a deceased person is a nullity and violates principles of natural justice, warranting its quashing.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act does not permit retroactive scrutiny of land transfers pre-dating statutory cut-off; failure to follow judicial precedents constitutes a breach of natural j....
(1) Existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of writ jurisdiction.(2) Factum of possession is essentially a question of fact – Although there is no hard and fast rule tha....
Delay in asserting rights under land ceiling regulation impacts maintainability of writ petitions; the court dismisses claims due to laches but permits civil recourse.
Timely objection is essential in ceiling proceedings; long delay in seeking judicial intervention leads to barring of relief due to laches, irrespective of alleged possession.
As per Sections 8 & 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Competent Authority shall issue notice to or provide an opportunity to be heard only to the ‘person concerned’, i.e., t....
Notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is issued to him to surrender such possession to the State Government, or the authorized officer or the competent autho....
The court established that proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act abate if possession is not taken before the Repeal Act, but claims can be dismissed on grounds of delay.
Point of law: Notifications issued from section 10(1) onwards till section 11 have not been quashed or set aside by neither the Hon’ble Tribunal, nor this Hon’ble High Court at any stage of litigatio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.