Gujarat High Court
Naginbhai Laxmanbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 25 February, 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2819 of 2001
-----------------------------------------------------------
NAGINBHAI LAXMANBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MR S TRIPATHY with Mr. H.J Mehta
for Petitioners No. 1-3
MS KATHA GAJJAR AGP for Respondent No. 1
Respondents No. 2 Served
MR YN RAVANI for Respondent No. 3
----------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MISS JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
Date of Order: 25/02/2002
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned advocates.
Learned advocate Mr. Tripathy appearing for the petitioners has moved a draft amendment. The draft amendment is opposed by the learned advocates Ms. Katha Gajjar and Mr. Y.N Ravani. It is stated that the impugned order of the competent authority was challenged by two of the petitioners herein and three others before the Urban Land Tribunal in Appeal No. 142 of 1994 which was dismissed on 18th September, 1996. The said fact has been suppressed by the petitioners in the present petition. The respondents have, however, pointed out the said fact in their counter-affidavit. The petitioners have now, with a view to circumventing the defence raised by the respondents, moved this amendment with an ulterior motive. The same, therefore, shall not be allowed. I do find substance in the objection raised by the learned advocates. The petitioners nos. 1 & 2 herein were appellants nos. 3 & 5 in the said appeal, and the father of the petitioner no. 3 was the appellant no. 4 in the said appeal. However, Mr. Tripathy has submitted that the said appellants in fact were not party to the said appeal nor they had signed the memo. This being the disputed question of fact, in the interest of justice, the draft amendment is allowed. The amendment shall be carried out within one week from today. It is clarified that the respondents shall be at liberty to raise the defence of the `suppressio veri' irrespective of the amendment.
The petitioners challenge the order of the competent authority dated 5th June, 1991 declaring some 20,000 sq.mtrs. of land, Survey No. 83/3 [Block No. 125] of Village-Palanpur, Taluka-Choryasi, District Surat as `excess vacant land' under section 9 of the Urban Land [Ceiling & Regulation] Act, 1976. The gravamen of the grievance is that the said land was a joint family property of the descendants of one Ranchhodbhai Bhulabhai. Three branches of the descendants of the said Ranchhodbhai Bhulabhai had a share in the said land. Their names also appear in the revenue records all throughout. Nonetheless, the shares of such other claimants have not been taken care of and without issuing any notice to the said persons, or without their knowledge, the land has been held to be `excess vacant land'. He has also asserted that possession has been unilaterally taken over without petitioners' actually handing over the possession.
Prima facie from the records, it does appear that the statement under section 6 (1) of the Act filed by one Gomabhai has been processed as if he were the only claimant of the land. Though others' names appeared in the revenue records and have been enumerated in the statement filed under section 6 (1) of the Act, no inquiry appears to have been made with respect to interest of such other persons. Therefore, Rule. Expedited. Pending this petition, the parties to this petition shall maintain status quo as regards the possession, title and user of the land in question on condition that the petitioner shall not alienate or part with the possession of the land in question or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever nor shall the petitioners or any body claiming through them use the said land for any purpose other than agricultural purpose. The said land shall be regularly cultivated and shall not be permitted to lie fallow.
[Miss R.M Doshit, J.] Prakash*