IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD 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 ==========================================================

DIP CO.OP. HSG. SOCIETY LTD. THROUGH PURSHOTTAM S PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR DEVAN PARIKH, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR ROHAN A SHAH(573)

for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR KANVA ANTANI, AGP WITH MS HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 MR MA BUKHARI(211) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,4.2 MR SACHIN D VASAVADA(3342) for the Respondent(s) No. 4.1,4.3,4.4,4.5 MR Y N RAVANI FOR MS RENU R SINGH for the Petitioner(s) No.1 (In WPPIL NO.243/2012)

==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Date : 09/02/2024 COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. The present letters patent appeal has been assigned by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice by the order dated 19.12.2023 to be heard by this Court in view of a difference of opinion between Hon’ble Justice Pardiwala (as he then was) and Hon’ble Justice A.C.Rao (as he then was).

2. The difference of opinion has been expressed by the respective Hon’ble Judges in the judgement dated 16.04.2020, wherein and whereby the captioned letters patent appeal along with captioned writ petition (PIL) No.243 of 2012 has been decided. The facts and issues are relating to the parcel of land bearing Survey No.314/1&2 situated at village Sola, Taluka Dascroi, Dist.Ahmedabad.

3. During the course of hearing, it was noticed by me that the view expressed by the Hon’ble Justice A.C.Rao is dissenting on various aspects as mentioned therein. His dissenting opinion on the issues is expressed from paragraph No.167 onwards and in view of the order passed in the letters patent appeal, WPPIL No.243 of 2012 has also been disposed of. Ultimately, in paragraph No.206 of the said judgement, the Hon’ble Judges have observed thus:

“206. In view of two conflicting judgements, the matter will have to be now referred to a third Judge in accordance with the Gujarat High Court Appellate Side Rules. The Registry shall act accordingly in accordance with the Rules.”

4. From the judgement, it is noticed that the dissenting view of the Hon’ble Justice A.C.Rao is with regard to the locus standi of the appellant, the status of the land in question, whether it is agricultural land or not, Section 19(1)(V) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the ULC Act”) and applicability of the circular, and also of suppression of material facts.

5. During the course of hearing, on being aware of the judgement dated 24.11.2011 passed in Special Civil Application No.12632 of 2011, which deals on the issue of reference to be made in case of difference of opinion amongst the Hon’ble Judges, I had pointed out the same to the learned Senior Advocate Mr.Parikh. The relevant paragraphs of the judgement are incorporated as under:

12. It is necessary to extract Rule 186 of Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 and Section 98 of Civil Procedure Code.

"186. Procedure in case of difference of opinion between Judges:- In case of difference of opinion between the Judges composing the Division Bench, the point of difference shall be decided in accordance with the procedure referred to in Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Code.

“Section 98 of Civil Procedure Code.

98. Decision where appeal heard by two or more Judges:-

(1) Where an appeal is heard by