Gujarat High Court
Vishnuji Laxmanji vs State Of Gujarat on 19 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 GUJ 266, 2019 AIR CC 3417 (GUJ)
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
C/SCA/6227/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6227 of 2018
=========================================
VISHNUJI LAXMANJI & 1 others
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 others
=========================================
Appearance :
MR MB GANDHI, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR CHINMAY GANDHI for the
Petitioners.
MR KANVA ANTANI, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents.
=========================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 19/08/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petition under Articles 14, 19 (1)
(g), 21, 300-A and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.7.2017 passed by the District Collector, Ahmedabad by which the application submitted by the petitioners to regularize the possession of the land bearing Revenue Survey No.356 (Block No.516) (Now Final Plot No.179/1) admeasuring 1759 Sq. Mts. of village Bopal, Tal. Daskroi, Dist. Ahmedabad which belonged to the State of Gujarat, on the ground that the petitioners are in possession of the land since number of years and are ready and willing to pay the Jantri price, came to be rejected. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 14.2.2018 passed by the learned Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No.20 of 2017 by which the SSRD has rejected the revision application of the petitioners and confirmed the order dated 15.7.2017 of the District Collector, Ahmedabad.
2. The short facts arise from the record are as under :-
Page 1 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 20 20:54:15 IST 2019 C/SCA/6227/2018 ORDER3. That land bearing Survey No.356, Block No.516 of Village Bopal, Tal. Daskroi, Dist. Ahmedabad admeasuring 24,787 Sq. Mts. was running under the head of Government barren land and an entry No.2022 was posted in the revenue record on 13.8.1956. It is the case of the petitioners that the family members of the petitioners were in possession of the said land and the petitioners are in exclusive possession of land admeasuring 2023 Sq. Mts. out of the total area of 24,787 Sq. Mts. and they are carrying on agricultural activities.
4. That an application was made by the petitioners in the year 2015 to the District Collector, Ahmedabad to regularize the possession of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.356, Block No.516 of village Bopal, Tal. Daskroi, Dist. Ahmedabad admeasuring 2023 Sq. Mts. on the ground that the said Survey No.356 admeasuring 24,787 Sq. Mts. were jointly occupied by the family members of the petitioners and petitioners are in possession of the above referred area of land.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the said agricultural land was jointly cultivated by several family members, however ultimately, it was decided that the petitioners shall continue in possession of 2023 Sq. Mts. of land. In response to the application, the Mamlatdar, Daskroi submitted his positive report to the District Collector, Ahmedabad since the petitioners were ready and willing to pay the Jantri price of the land.
5. However, the District Collector, Ahmedabad vide impugned order dated 15.7.2017 rejected the application of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are in illegal Page 2 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 20 20:54:15 IST 2019 C/SCA/6227/2018 ORDER possession of the land in question as the land in question is now covered under Town Planning Scheme and is on prime location and cannot be granted as such.
6. The said decision was challenged by the petitioners by way of Revision Application No.20 of 2017 under Rule 108 (6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules. The SSRD vide his impugned order dated 14.2.2018 dismissed the said revision application.
7. Hence this petition.
8. Mr. M. B. Gandhi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chinmay Gandhi appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the authorities below committed grave error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioners since it was established before the authorities that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question since decades and are ready and willing to pay the market price of the land in question. By taking me through the map produced on record, he would submit that subsequent to implementation of the Town Planning Scheme No.3 of Bopal, the land in question i.e. Block No.516 was divided into three parts, namely, Final Plot Nos.179/1, 179/2 and 179/3. The petitioners are concerned with Final Plot No.179/1. He would further submit that Final Plot Nos.179/2 and 179/3 have been granted to different persons who were in possession of the same and their possession was regularized. However, the petitioners are deprived of similar treatment. He would further submit that the respondent authorities ought to have treated the petitioners at par with other persons whose possession over land bearing Final Plot Nos.179/2 and 179/3 been regularized.
Page 3 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 20 20:54:15 IST 2019 C/SCA/6227/2018 ORDER9. By relying upon the Government Resolutions dated 27.2.2009 and 18.6.2010 issued by the Revenue Department of the Government of Gujarat, Mr. Gandhi would submit that the authorities ought to have regularized the possession of the petitioners since they are in possession of the same and having less than 2 ½ Acres of the land as provided in the said Resolutions. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be allowed.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Kanva Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed this petition and would submit that the authorities have not committed any error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioners. He would further submit that the petitioners have miserably failed in establishing that the land bearing Final Plot No.179/1 (originally admeasuring 2023 Sq. Mts.) now admeasuring 1759 Sq. Mts. (subsequent to implementation of the Town Planning Scheme) is being cultivated by the petitioners and that they are in legal possession of the same. He would further submit that Entry No.2022 was posted in the revenue record way back on 13.8.1956 recording that the said land is barren land and belongs to Government. He would further submit that one Ganpatji Becharji and Gabaji Dhanaji were granted 2 Acres of land and 3 Acres and 20 Gunthas of land respectively in the year 1974 and 1978 since the said persons had requested to regularize the lands, the same was considered and entries to the said effect were mutated in the revenue record on 5.8.1974 and 4.5.1978 respectively. However, at that time, neither the petitioners nor their predecessor have requested to regularize their possession. He would further submit that when the Town Planning Scheme is finalized and the land has become very precious, the petitioners have come forward to get the land regularized and their illegal possession over the land in Page 4 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 20 20:54:15 IST 2019 C/SCA/6227/2018 ORDER question. He would further submit that looking to the small size of agricultural land, it appears that no agricultural activities on the land in question is feasible.
11. He would further submit that it is an undisputed fact that the land in question belongs to the State Government and the petitioners have illegally occupied the land in question. He would further submit that the Government Resolutions upon which reliance is placed by the petitioners are with regard to lands which were granted earlier as Inaam land. He would further submit that subsequent to introduction of Inaam Abolition Act, the Government can consider for regularizing the land. But in the present case, it is not the case of the petitioners that it is an Inaam land. However, Entry No.2022 was posted in the revenue record on 13.8.1956 recording that the said land is barren land and of Government of Gujarat. He, therefore, would submit that the Resolutions relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
12. As far as the submission made by Mr. Gandhi about treating the petitioners at par with the other persons, Mr. Antani would submit that the case of the petitioners is required to be dealt with on its own merits unless the petitioners establish that they have an extraordinary exceptional case and in that case, the Court would interfere with the decision of the authorities. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration and another v. Jagjit Singh and another, (1995) 1 SCC 745 and would submit that the petition be dismissed.
13. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the Page 5 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 20 20:54:15 IST 2019 C/SCA/6227/2018 ORDER respective parties. I have also gone through the orders impugned in the petition, map produced on record, recommendations made by the Mamlatdar. It appears from the record that land bearing Revenue Survey No.356, Block No.516 of village Bopal, Tal. Daskroi, Dist. Ahmedabad admeasuring 24,787 Sq. Mts. was being administered under the name of the then State of Maharashtra. However, by Entry No.2022 posted in the revenue record on 13.8.1956, the said land was treated as barren land and in the name of Government. Thereafter, the land has remained in the name of the Government of Gujarat. It also appears that the land was granted as new tenure land to one Ganpatji Becharji as well as Gabaji Dhanaji in the year 1974 and 1978 and entries in the revenue record came to be certified on 5.8.1974 and 4.5.1978 respectively. The petitioners have never cared to apply for regularizing the land which they claim to be in their possession for the last 70 years, even after 1974 or 1978. The petitioners for the first time applied for regularizing the land in question in the year 2015 and that too subsequent to implementation of the Town Planning Scheme in the year 2010. After implementation of the Town Planning Scheme, the land in question i.e. Block No.516 was divided into three parts, namely, Final Plot Nos.179/1, 179/2 and 179/3. The lands which were regularized in the year 1974 and 1978 were given Final Plot Nos.179/2 and 179/3, whereas the land in question is given Final Plot No.179/1 admeasuring 1759 Sq. Mts. Therefore, there is no question of giving different treatment to the petitioners as the other persons who are in possession of Final Plot Nos.179/2 and 179/3, their possession was regularized before implementation of the Town Planning Scheme i.e. way back in the year 1974 and 1978 respectively. Hence, the case of the petitioners cannot be compared at par with the case of others.
Page 6 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 20 20:54:15 IST 2019 C/SCA/6227/2018 ORDER14. The map suggests that the land in question is abutting a 24 Meter wide road and is on a prime location. Hence, when the petitioners have failed to establish their possession on the land in question, it can safely be said that the petitioners are in illegal possession of the land in question.
15. When the case of the other persons are not comparable with the case of the present petitioners, I am of the opinion that the same is required to be dealt with separately on its own merits. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration and another (Supra) would be applicable to the facts of the present case. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment reads as under :-
"8. We are of the opinion that the basis or the principle, if it can be called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court is unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle. Since we have come across many such instances, we think it necessary to deal with such pleas at a little length. Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that Page 7 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 20 20:54:15 IST 2019 C/SCA/6227/2018 ORDER such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law indeed, wherever it is possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent authority to repeat the illegality, the Court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. Of course, if in case the order in favour of the other person is found to be a lawful and justified one it can be followed and a similar relief can be given to the petitioner if it is found that the petitioners' case is similar to the other persons' case. But then why examine another person's case in his absence rather than examining the case of the petitioner who is present before the Court and seeking the relief. Is it not more appropriate and Page 8 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 20 20:54:15 IST 2019 C/SCA/6227/2018 ORDER convenient to examine the entitlement of the petitioner before the Court to the relief asked for in the facts and circumstances of his case than to enquire into the correctness of the order made or action taken in another person's case, which other person is not before the case nor is his case. In our considered opinion, such a course - barring exceptional situations would neither be advisable nor desirable. In other words, the High Court cannot ignore the law and the well-accepted norms governing the writ jurisdiction and say that because in one case a particular order has been passed or a particular action has been taken, the same must be repeated irrespective of the fact whether such an order or action is contrary to law or otherwise. Each case must be decided on its own merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant legal principles. The orders and actions of the authorities cannot be equated to the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts nor can they be elevated to the level of the precedents, as understood in the judicial world. (What is the position in the case of orders passed by authorities in exercise of their quasi-judicial power, we express no opinion. That can be dealt with when a proper case arises.)"
16. It is pertinent to note here that from the observations made in the impugned orders as well as from the map of the land in question, it appears that the land in question is on a prime location and a valuable Government land which cannot be regularized since the land was not confiscated or treated as Government land pursuant to the Inaam Abolition Act. Though it is the case of the Page 9 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 20 20:54:15 IST 2019 C/SCA/6227/2018 ORDER petitioners that the land in question was mutated in the name of State of Gujarat pursuant to the Inaam Abolition Act, however, there is no proof to establish the case put forward by the petitioners. Hence, the case of the petitioners cannot be considered as covered under the Inaam Abolition Act and hence, the resolutions relied upon by the petitioners would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
17. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities below with regard to the right of the petitioners over the land in question or entitlement under any of the Government Resolutions which are produced on record. Hence, the present petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated.
Request to extend the status-quo granted earlier is hereby refused.
(A.J.DESAI, J) SAVARIYA Page 10 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 20 20:54:15 IST 2019