Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner again submitted written reply on 8.6.2005 requested to issue revised NA by regularising the construction which was made in the year 1991 assuming there was technical breach of the NA permission. The petitioner requested for such regularisation more particularly in view of the fact that one of the plot holders of R.S. No. 70 after purchase of the plot from the petitioner had got revised N.A., and the other owners had got revised N.A., for consolidated plots. The petitioner contended that no site of common plot has been given in sale and that there is still ample open land lying and thus the petitioner has not constructed any excess area than what is granted. The petitioner vide the said reply dated 8.6.2005 requested for grant of revised NA on payment of appropriate charges.

(para 19)- Considering the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, the petitioner does not appear to fall within the ambit of property grabber as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act. The petitioner and Rajesh Himatlal Sheth (petitioner in the present petition) are admittedly the original owners of the lands in relation to which illegal activities having been committed are alleged. Placing reliance upon a resolution of the State Government, (a copy of which has not been supplied to the petitioner), it is the contention of the respondents that lands forming part of the common plot and internal road in the N.A. Permission lay out plan cease to be the property of the original land owner. However, upon perusal of the statements and objects of the Act, as reproduced in the aforesaid decision, it is clear that a mere breach of N.A. Permission cannot be said to be an activity falling within the definition of property grabber under Section 2(h) of the act. The activity contemplated under the Act in relation to property grabbing is taking illegal possession of public or private lands by musclemen of some means and construction of unauthorised structures thereon or selling, leasing or giving on lease and license such land or unauthorized structure after collecting heavy price, rents, compensation etc., and resorting to criminal intimidation in so collecting the charge from the occupiers by the musclemen. It is such activities, which have the entire community living in the slums under the grip of perpetual fear of such land grabbers that can be said to be activities, which adversely affect the public order. In the present case, the lands in relation to which objectionable activities are alleged are admittedly of the ownership of the petitioner. Moreover, none of the objectionable activities alleged against the petitioner are in the nature of criminal intimidation or similar thereto, which have the effect of creating fear in the minds of the people residing in the locality or the public at large. Hence , it cannot be said that the petitioner has illegally taken possession of lands not belonging to himself, but belonging to government, local authority or any other person and as such, cannot be said to fall within the ambit of property grabber as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act. Hence, on this ground alone the detention order must fail.
25.1 In paragraph Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the said judgement, the Court has further observed as under:
(para 20) - Under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, a person can be said to be acting a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public Page 0815 order when such person is (1) engaged in or (2) is making preparation for engaging in any activities enumerated therein, (in the present case, property grabber) which affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. In the present case, the aforesaid requirements are not fulfilled in that the respondents have failed to show that the petitioner is engaged in or is making preparation for engaging in the activity of property grabbing. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has constructed upon land shown as common plot and road in the layout plan, which was completed in the year 1993. The Raja Chiththi (building permission) was obtained in 1991 for shops etc., and for compound wall in the year 1998. The sale deeds upon which reliance has been placed for making the impugned detention order have been executed in the year 2000. There is nothing on record to show that on the date of making of the order of detention the petitioner was either engaged in or making preparations for engaging in any of the alleged illegal activities. Hence on this ground also the order of detention must fail.

28A It was further submitted that as the petitioner has made unauthorised construction knowing very well that no such construction can be made contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue , Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, Gujarat Panchayat Act and other relevant laws whichever is applicable to the case and also without obtaining previous permission of the competent authorities and in contravention of terms and conditions of such permission and the plans sanctioned by the authorities on marginal lands, public roads and marginal lands of open space as well as common plot knowing well that such land becomes the common property of plot holders and unit holders of such constructed properties. According to the Government, neither the original land owner nor any individual will have any personal or individual right, title or interest on such land. No such construction to be made on such land contrary to the provisions of the relevant laws. In spite of that, petitioner in collusion with others made such unauthorised and illegal constructions on those lands, which are not belonging to him. If any legal action is taken against the persons who are in possession of such unauthorised construction by removing the same, it would have resulted in breach of public order in that area.