Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)

1. These two Intra­Court Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common order of the learned Single Judge (Coram : Bela M. Trivedi, J.), dismissing the Special Civil Application No.3776 of 1997 (Dineshkumar Jagubhai Patel & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others) and Special Civil Application No.2612 of 1997 (Jagubhai Dayabhai Patel & Others v. Competent Authority & Additional Collector) . The matter arises under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the ULC Act' for short) and though we, prima facie, found the controversy to be covered by our decision in the case of Heirs of Deceased Jethabhai Ishwarbhai v. State of Gujarat & Others rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.405 of 2017, dated 22.1.2021, Mr.Dhaval C. Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants - Petitioners, urged and took almost entire day of hearing for taking C/LPA/332/2017 CAV JUDGMENT Dt.: 5.3.2021 DINESHKUMAR JAGUBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 9 others us through a complex matrix of facts and Documents with their widespread litigative history of the present case, pertaining to the land admeasuring 36,827 Sq. Mtrs. declared as excess or surplus land under the provisions of the ULC Act which, according to the said enactment, would vest with the State Government once the draft order under Section 8(4) and final order under Section 9 of the ULC Act is made by the Competent Authority and a Notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act is issued by the State Government vesting the surplus land in the State free from all encumbrances. Thereafter, a Notice­cum­Order under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act has to be served on the land owners or occupants of the land in question and if the possession is not handed over to the State Authorities within 30 days in compliance of such Notice­cum­ Order under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, the State Authorities can take forcible possession of the land in question under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act and then, allot the same to needy persons in terms of Section 23 of the Act.

2. The exception to compulsory take over of the surplus / excess land beyond the prescribed limits of the urban ceiling in the Act is provided under Sections 20 and 21 of the ULC Act, where the State C/LPA/332/2017 CAV JUDGMENT Dt.: 5.3.2021 DINESHKUMAR JAGUBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 9 others Government has power to exempt and let the land remain with the landholder under Section 20 of the ULC Act in the given circumstances or under Section 21 of the ULC Act, upon a Scheme for housing for Weaker Section of the Society, if approved, as submitted by the land owner, his land can be so exempted under Sections 20 or Section 21 of the ULC Act.

7. While on the State Government side, it was pin­pointed and emphasized before us that not only a Draft order under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act was made, but a Final order under Section 9 of the ULC Act was also passed by the Competent Authority after hearing the objections during which no such case of exemption under Section 20 of the ULC Act was made out and then determining the surplus C/LPA/332/2017 CAV JUDGMENT Dt.: 5.3.2021 DINESHKUMAR JAGUBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 9 others or excess land of 36,827 Sq. Mtrs., the Notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was also issued on 3.4.1986 vesting the surplus land in the State free from any encumbrance and consequently, by a Panchnama process, in the presence of two independent witnesses, namely, (i) Ramanbhai Maganbhai Patel and (ii) Chhaganbhai Devjibhai, the physical possession of the land in question was taken over by the State Authorities on 9.9.1986 and even Mutation Entry No.770 was recorded in favour of State on 20.4.1988 .

29. The said Affidavit was controverted by the reply counter Affidavit from the side of the State Government. An Affidavit of N.R.Gandhal, Deputy Collector (L.R.), Office of the Collector, Surat dated 15.12.2016 with which not only the Panchnama dated 9.9.1986 has been produced but, the unsigned purported order under Section 20 of the ULC Act which was never signed has also been produced at Annexure­R­3 and, therefore, the alleged order under Section 20 of the ULC Act was not even still born in the Revenue Department, what to talk of a final exemption order passed purportedly on 5.10.1979. Had there been any such order given in favour of Petitioners on 5.10.1979, nothing prevented them to produce before the Competent Authority during the contemporary period straightway in the form of a valid objection even during the C/LPA/332/2017 CAV JUDGMENT Dt.: 5.3.2021 DINESHKUMAR JAGUBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 9 others proceedings under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act or Section 9 of the ULC Act and that could have prevented even the issuance of the Notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act and vesting the land in the State on 3.4.1986. All these subsequent efforts of the vested interest parties to create a story of exemption order dated 5.10.1979 has no substance and is a flimsy ground to justify the execution of such multiple Sale Deeds and buying the litigation from the original landholders and then, create 'Castles in the Air' as it were.