Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Gujarat And Anr. vs Pannaben Niranjan M.Mehta(D) Tr.Lrs. on 23 July, 2020
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10252 OF 2011
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ... APPELLANT(S)
VS.
PANNABEN NIRANJAN M.MEHTA (D) LRS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The matter relates to proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (Since repealed by the Central Government w.e.f.11.1.1999 and adopted by the State of Gujarat on 23.4.1999). The controversy emanates from the property of the HUF sought to be saved by sacrificing of property of the respondent herein, wife/lady. It is not disputed that the property stands in the name of the respondent. No notice in accordance with law was ever served on the respondent and this formed the sole basis of the impugned judgment. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the impugned judgment read as under:
“18. Examining the issue from another angle, it may be noticed that except for the land in question all the properties declared by the declarant as forming part of the holding of the family were HUF properties. The land in question was the individual self-acquired property of the petitioner. It is this property that the declarant had indicated as his choice for acquisition by the Government Signature Not Verified Digitally signed bytowards the lands declared excess vacant. There is nothing ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2020.07.27 18:20:15 IST Reason: on record to show that the petitioner was ever put to notice in respect of the same. In such a situation, when 1 the lands held by the HUF have been retained and the only land held by the petitioner in her individual capacity which, as the record indicates, was stated to have been purchased from the Streedhan has been declared as excess vacant without any notice to her, immense prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Hence the entire proceeding undertaken without issuance of notice to the petitioner is null and void.
19. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that though the land in question, namely, the land held by the petitioner in her individual capacity could have been taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the total holding of the family, the petitioner was entitled to issuance of notice as prescribed under Rule 5 as well as service of draft statement under Section 8(3) of the Act.
Besides the notifications under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act in respect of the property held by the petitioner, could not have been issued indicating her husband to be the holder, more so when it was specifically indicated in Form No.1filed under Section 6 of the Act that the property in question is an individual self-acquired property of the petitioner.”
3. We are of the view that the findings of the Division Bench in this behalf are in accordance with law as the valuable right of property to a lady was sought to be deprived without following the due process as was required under the Act for issuance of notice. As noted above, the Legislature in its wisdom, in any case has now abrogated the Act and even lands of which possession was not taken have been permitted to be retained.
2
4. In view of all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
.......................J. (SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) .......................J. (AJAY RASTOGI) .......................J. (ANIRUDDHA BOSE) New Delhi, July 23, 2020.
3
ITEM NO.102 Court 7 (Video Conferencing) SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 10252/2011
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PANNABEN NIRANJAN M.MEHTA(D) TR.LRS. Respondent(s)
Date : 23-07-2020 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE For Appellant(s) Mr. A.P.Mayee, AOR Mr. Maulik Nanavati,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Jatin Zaveri, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (ANITA RANI AHUJA)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file.) 4