Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Mr. A.J. Desai, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that as per the circular issued by the State Government, if a person violates any condition, the land is liable to be vested in the State Government and the concerned person is liable to be summarily evicted under Section 66 of the Code. He submitted that as per the provisions of Article 300A, no property of anybody can be C/LPA/1693/2010 JUDGMENT taken away by a law enacted either by the Parliament or by the State Government or the statutory rules by the Parliament and/or the State Government. He submitted that therefore vesting of a land by circular in the State Government is in straight violation of Article 300 A and thus the land could not be vested. In this regard he has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in AIR 1995 SC 142 wherein it is held that the word 'law' used in Article 300A must be an Act of Parliament or of State Legislature, a rule or statutory order having force of law.

5.2 Mr. Jani submitted that the contention with regard to Article 300A was not pressed into service before the learned Single Judge and therefore the same may not be entertained. He submitted that even otherwise the land in question is a government vested land and was never of the absolute ownership of either the original allottee, their heirs and legal representative or the power of attorney. He submitted that in the decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant it is specifically held that Article 300A does not give any absolute right to hold property and the right guaranteed thereunder is subject to restriction authorised by law.

6.1 The Collector passed order on 22.12.1997 and ordered the land to be confiscated in the Government. The Secretary (Appeals) confirmed the order passed by the Collector. In view of the concurrent findings by the authorities below and the learned Single Judge, this Court has limited jurisdiction. We do not find any infirmity in the orders assailed by the appellants. The contention with regard to Article 300A was not pressed into service before the learned Single Judge during the course of argument as it appears from the order passed by the learned Single Judge and therefore the same is being raised for the first time in this appeal and was not argued before the learned Single Judge. Even though the said contention has been included in the appeal memo by way of amendment, since the same was not argued before the learned Single Judge during the course of final hearing, we have thought it fit not to consider the said contention as the same has been raised at a belated stage.