Gujarat High Court
Jashuben Jethsurbhai Garaniya vs State Of Gujarat on 20 March, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10860/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10860 of 2024
==========================================================
JASHUBEN JETHSURBHAI GARANIYA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEET KAKADIA, ADVOCATE FOR MR N R DESAI(6504) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR J K SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 20/03/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Meet Kakadia for learned Advocate Mr. N.R. Desai for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah for the respondent-State.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioners challenge an order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the SSRD in Revision Application No. MVV/JMN/ AML/14/2023.
3. It appears that the petitioners claim to be occupants on parcels of lands situated at village Shakhpur, Taluka Lathi, District Amreli as well as in village Pipalva, Taluka Lathi, District Amreli.
4. The petitioners by way of the said revision application had Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Mon Mar 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 24 21:45:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10860/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined challenged an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Lathi, dated 31.07.2012, whereby the Deputy Collector, Lathi had allotted the land exercising provisions of Section 30 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960. It requires to be mentioned here that the land in question originally belong to one Vijaysinh Vitthalrav and whereas vide an order dated 07.02.1989 in Ceiling Case No. 139 of 1989 under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, the lands had been declared as surplus and the possession of the said lands had been taken over, more particularly the order having been mutated in the revenue record vide entry no. 844 dated 25.04.1989. It appears that against the said order, the legal heirs of the original land owners had approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 5695 of 1992 and whereas vide order dated 24.02.2011 the said petition had been rejected by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
4.1 It would appear that after the dismissal of the above mentioned writ petition, the original owners had not challenged the said order any further and whereas the petitioners herein, claiming to be occupants of the land in question had challenged the same before Division Bench of this Court by preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 1173 of 2012 and whereas the said Letters Patent Appeal had been dismissed on the ground that the Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Mon Mar 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 24 21:45:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10860/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable against a decision of a learned Single Judge having exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It appears that the present petitioners had challenged the said decision of the learned Single Judge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide an order dated 08.10.2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP. It would appear that in the interregnum, the Deputy Collector had passed an order dated 31.07.2012, whereby the lands had been directed to be allotted to certain persons named in the said order, in exercise of powers under Section 30 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act. The said order had been challenged by the petitioners by preferring a revision application before the SSRD being Revision Application No. 39 of 2012 and whereas vide an order dated 03.11.2012, the SSRD had consigned the revision to file, more particularly on the ground that the SSRD did not have any power to entertain challenge to an order passed by the Deputy Collector under Section 30 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act. The said order had been challenged by the petitioners before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 129 of 2013 and while originally an ad- interim relief had been granted in favour of the petitioners vide an order dated 09.01.2013, the same had been confirmed vide an order dated 12.12.2013 and ultimately, vide an order dated 25.04.2023, a learned Co-
Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Mon Mar 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 24 21:45:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10860/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined
ordinate Bench of this Court had partly allowed the said writ petition by remanding the matter back to the SSRD for rehearing, more particularly holding that the SSRD was competent to hear a challenge to an order passed by the Deputy Collector under Section 30 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act. The order impugned in the present petition is passed in the revision application which arises from the remand order of this Court.
5. Learned Advocate Mr. Meet Kakadia for the petitioners would submit that since the petitioners are occupying the land in question, as and when the land is allotted as per the provisions of Section 30 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, the petitioners' case may be considered by the appropriate authority. Furthermore, on merits it was submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Kakadia that though the petitioners were in possession of the land in question, yet, they were not afforded any opportunity of hearing. Thus submitting, learned Advocate Mr. Kakadia would request this Court to interfere with the order passed by the SSRD dated 02.04.2024.
6. As against the submissions of learned Advocate Mr. Kakadia, the present petition is vehemently opposed by learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned AGP would submit that the Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Mon Mar 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 24 21:45:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10860/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined petitioners have no right whatsoever to occupy the land in question, more particularly, after order of the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.10.2013. Learned AGP would submit that the land having been declared surplus, the land not belonging to the petitioners in any manner whatsoever, there is no requirement that the State before passing of order of allotment is required to hear unauthorized occupants upon such lands. 6.1 Insofar as the main request of learned Advocate Mr. Kakadia that the case of the petitioners may be considered at the time of allotment, it is submitted by learned AGP Mr. Shah that as such, while the petitioners have never applied for allotment of the land in question, in any case it is submitted that pursuant to order of the SSRD, if at all the State deems it appropriate to review the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 31.07.2012, then the case of the petitioners shall be considered along with other such persons who may have applied, more particularly in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act. Learned AGP would further submit that as such, the present is a clear case of costs since the petitioners have abused the legal process since the petitioners having no right upon the land in question, having managed to retain possession of the land for more than 12 years after the Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Mon Mar 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 24 21:45:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10860/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, are now seeking equity jurisdiction to be exercised in their favour.
7. As against the submissions made by the learned AGP, in rejoinder, learned Advocate Mr. Kakadia would submit that the petitioners having approached this Court after the order was passed by the Deputy Collector, had been protected by this Court. It is further submitted that insofar as the alleged unauthorized occupation of the petitioners is concerned, the case of the petitioners was that they were holding that land on Chakariyat basis for more than half a century. Under such circumstances, it is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Kakadia that this Court may intervene and pass appropriate orders in favour of the petitioners.
8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record, to this Court it would appear that no interference whatsoever is required in the impugned order passed by the SSRD.
9. The above conclusion is arrived at by this Court on the basis that as such, the petitioners had no right whatsoever upon the land in question. While the petitioners are attempting to submit before this Court that they were holding the land on Chakariyat basis, yet, there is no order made by Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Mon Mar 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 24 21:45:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10860/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined any competent authority to substantiate the same. The averments made by the petitioners, being completely unsubstantiated, and never having been upheld by any competent authority, cannot be considered at this stage.
10. Furthermore, it requires to be observed that the original order whereby the land was declared as surplus and having been directed to be vested in the State Government i.e. the order passed in the year 1989, has been confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It requires mention here that the owner of the land in question, had given up his contest to the order after the learned Single Judge of this Court had confirmed the said order and whereas it is the petitioners who had thereafter continued to challenge the same and whereas the petitioners also did not succeed having the order dislodged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the order declaring the land as surplus, has been confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the land having been directed to be vested in the State, thereafter any person occupying the land except for allotting under Section 30 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, would be and should be deemed to be unauthorized occupants on the land in question.
11. Furthermore, insofar as the submission made by learned Advocate Mr. Kakadia that the petitioners had not been provided any appropriate Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Mon Mar 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 24 21:45:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10860/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined opportunity, to this Court it would appear that the Deputy Collector was exercising power under Section 30 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, which was in the nature of a ministerial function of the Deputy Collector who had to allot land which had been declared as surplus and which had stood vested in the State Government. Section 30 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act does not envisage any adjudication to be done by the Collector, rather what is to be done by the Collector is to allot land which has been declared as surplus as per the list of priority as found in the said provision itself. The said provision does not envisage that persons unauthorizedly occupying the land in question are to be given an opportunity of hearing and whereas even the general principle of audi alteram partem will not come to the aid of the petitioners, more particularly since the order of declaring the land as surplus having been confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioners thereafter did not have any right whatsoever to remain on the land in question.
12. As far as the submission made by learned AGP that the petitioners have managed to remain on the land in question for more than 12 years after the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned, it would appear that the petitioners having availed appropriate legal remedy by Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Mon Mar 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 24 21:45:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10860/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined filing a writ petition before this Court and whereas this Court having protected the petitioners in the interregnum, it could not be said that the petitioners were in any manner misusing the process. As such, to this Court it would appear that the petitioners having availed of a legal remedy, and this Court having protected the petitioners till such legal remedy had reached a logical conclusion, no fault could be found on side of the present petitioners.
13. Insofar as the submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners may be considered for allotment, to this Court it would appear that granting such prayer or even making any observation with regard to such a request, would lead to a fresh round of litigation initiated at the behest of the present petitioners. It requires to be noted in this regard that while the petitioners had challenged the order dated 31.07.2012, the challenge to the same had failed upto the SSRD and whereas this Court is also not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of SSRD dated 02.04.2024 in any manner whatsoever. The allotments having been made, it would now not be open for the petitioners to say that their case also should be considered for allotment. In any case, it is observed that in case, at a later stage, if the State deems it appropriate to interfere with the order dated 31.07.2012 and deems it Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Mon Mar 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 24 21:45:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10860/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined appropriate to re-initiate proceedings under Section 30 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, then the State is expected to take into consideration all relevant factors while allotting the land, more particularly in the list of priority as per Section 30 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, and whereas this Court does not in any manner deem it appropriate to circumscribe the powers of the State by making any observation at this stage.
14. Furthermore, to this Court it would appear that the petitioners have no right whatsoever to remain in the land, more particularly after the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.10.2013. The petitioners having remained on the land for more than a decade after the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate not to exercise its equity jurisdiction in favour of the present petitioners. Hence, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present petition being absolutely misconceived is hereby disposed of as rejected.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) BDSONGARA Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Mon Mar 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 24 21:45:05 IST 2025