Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Guj) 1856

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.
Babubhai Mafatbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 487 of 2017, In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18463 of 2015 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2019, CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR EXTENSION OF TIME) NO. 1 of 2022, CIVIL APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO. 1 of 2023
Decided on : 10-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR. MIHIR THAKORE, SR. ADV. WITH MR HARSHADRAY A DAVE
For the Respondent:MS. HETAL PATEL, PLEADER for the MR. SHALIN MEHTA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR TATTVAM K PATEL, VIRAL K SHAH

IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:
(A) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 8(4) and 10(5) - Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging allotment of excess land - Court found that possession was taken by State Government under the Ceiling Act, and the petitioner had no right to contest after declaring the land vested with the State. The notice under Section 10(5) issued to a deceased person was deemed invalid - The appeal was dismissed as meritless. (Paras 1, 4, 29, 36)
(B) Suppression of Facts - The petitioner failed to disclose crucial facts regarding the proceedings under the Ceiling Act and the death of the original declarant, which rendered the challenge to the proceedings untenable. (Paras 22, 34, 35)

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:

4.1 One Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai had purchased land admeasuring about 5041 sq. yards bearing revenue survey No. 702 of Village: Makarba by way of a registered sale-deed dated 22.10.1971 from Laljibhai Shyamaldas. Pursuant thereto a mutation entry came to be effected vide entry No. 4990 on 12.12.1971 in revenue record Form No.6. It seems that with respect to the sale-deed, proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenancy Act' for short) were initiated, however, on 4.1.1973, by way of entry No. 5051, it was recorded that the proceedings under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act were closed. Subsequently, partition was made in the said land. On 26.7.1973, vide another entry No. 5091 partition in revenue survey No. 702 was recorded.

4.2 Subsequent to the partition and on implementation of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act' for short), Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai submitted a declaration in Form No.6/1 of the Ceiling Act wherein land reflected in the name of Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai was about 5041 sq. yards in revenue survey No. 702 paiki. On 7.6.1983, another mutation entry being entry No. 5919 was recorded wherein the partition in the revenue survey No. 702 paiki was shown. In land bearing survey No. 702 paiki, around land admeasuring 7662 sq. mtrs was reflected in the name of Tarulataben whereas about 5041 sq. yards was reflected in the name of Parvatiben, i.e. wife of Bhaichandbhai.

4.3 In the year 1983, one Kamalnayan Pandit filed Civil Suit No. 406/1983 against Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai claiming possession in the said land and restraining Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai from making any obstruction. An injunction against the defendant therein.

4.4 The competent authority initiated proceedings under Section 8(4) of the Ceiling Act and by order dated 6.9.1984, an area admeasuring 3214.33 sq. mtrs from the disputed land has been declared as excess vacant land, while allowing the owners to retain 1000 sq. mtrs of land only. An appeal was preferred by Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai before the Special Secretary, wherein by interim order dated 5.11.1984, the authorities under Ceiling Act had been restrained to initiate further action qua the disputed land subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions specified therein was that Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai could not sell or alienate or change the disputed land and the status-quo as prevailed qua the disputed land on 17.2.1976 had to be maintained.

4.5 During the pendency of the said appeal, another civil suit came to be filed by one Kamalnayan Pandit against Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai and others for specific performance of agreement to sell, which was numbered as Civil Suit No. 83 of 1985. During the pendency of the civil suit as well