IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)

[1] The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the appellants – original respondents assailing the correctness and validity of the judgment and order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.23506 of 2006.

[2] The writ petition preferred by respondents - original writ petitioners prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 08.10.1984 passed by the competent authority as well as to declare that the land bearing original Revenue Survey No. 187 situated in the sim of Village Chandlodia. Taluka : City, District: Ahmedabad admeaasuring 14569 sq.mtrs. which were given three final plots. Nos. 78 admeasuring 3186 sq.mtrs. of Draft T.P. Scheme No. 28 and Final Plots No. 65 admeasuring 3428 sq.mtrs. and 91 admeasurina 2570 sq.mtrs. of Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 18 out of which 8600 sq.mtrs. does not vest in the State Government.

[3] The learned Single Judge after considering the contentions raised by both the parties was pleased to allow the writ petition granting the prayers as prayed for by the original writ petitioners. Being aggrieved, the State has assailed the judgment and order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

[4] The factual matrix leading to filing of the writ petition is that the respondents - original writ petitioners were legal representatives of deceased Kantilal Narandas Patel, deceased Vidhyaben Kantilal Patel and deceased Rajnikant Kantilal Patel. Land bearing Survey No.187 situated in the sim of Village Chandlodia. Taluka : City, District: Ahmedabad admeaasuring 14569 sq.mtrs., which were given three final plots. Nos. 78 admeasuring 3186 sq.mtrs. of Draft T.P. Scheme No. 28 and Final Plots No. 65 admeasuring 3428 sq.mtrs. and 91 admeasuring 2570 sq.mtrs. in the Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 18, out of which 8600 sq.mtrs. (hereinafter referred as to "the disputed land") was purchased jointly by Kantilal Narandas Patel and Vidhyaben Kantilal Patel vide registered sale deed dated 30.06.1971. Mutation entry came to entered in the revenue records being Entry No.1020 dated 22.07.1975, which was duly certified.

[4.1] It is the case of the original writ petitioners that the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling Act") came into force on 17.02.1976. Pursuant to the provisions enunciated under the Ceiling Act, deceased Kantilal Narandas Patel filed Form No.1 under Section 6 of the Ceiling Act on 13.08.1976. Subsequent to filling of the form, Kantilal Narandas Patel had expired on 09.11.1976. Pursuant to death of Kantilal Narandas Patel, mutation Entry No.1181 dated 29.08.1977 was made bringing the legal heirs of Kantilal Narandas Patel on record. The legal heirs of Kantilal Narandas Patel, namely, Vidhyaben Kantilal Patel and Rajnikant Kantilal Patel filed an application under Section 21(1) of the Ceiling Act for the development of Scheme for the Weaker Section of the Society on the disputed land. The form was filled up on 30.03.1979. The competent authority by order dated 29.11.1980 sanctioned the scheme under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act. As per the order passed by the competent authority, the scheme was required to be completed within a period of five years. The permission was also sought from the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority for the purpose of construction of residential units for people belonging to Weaker section of the society. The Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) granted the permission on 15.05.1982. The N.A. permission from the District Panchayat was also taken. The Raja Chiththi and the permission to construct and N.A. order from the District Panchayat was also obtained.

[4.2] However, during the pendency of the proceeding under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act, the competent authority had initiated proceedings under Section 6 of the Ceiling Act for the purp