Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In 1976, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the ULC Act") came into force in the State of Gujarat and the land in question being situated within the residential zone in the master plan under the Town Planning Act fell within the definition of vacant land under the ULC Act. On 01.04.1976, the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling (Amendment) Act, 1972 came into force amending the definition of land so as to include the bid land as well within the definition of land. On a clarification sought by the competent authority and the Under Secretary, Revenue Department and the Additional Collector (ULC Act) informed the said authority that in view of the overriding provisions contained in Section 42 of the ULC Act, the land in question would be governed by the ULC Act and requested the said authority to proceed under the said Act. On a further clarification sought by the competent authority and the Additional Collector, the Revenue Department conveyed to the said authority the opinion of legal department of the State Government that the land in question would be governed by the ULC Act and not by the ALC Act. On receipt of a similar communication from the Revenue Department, the Deputy Collector passed orders to drop the proceedings on the application filed by the former Ruler under Section 8 of the ALC Act for a declaration that the sale effected by him vide aforementioned sale deed dated 31.03.1971 had not been done in anticipation of or with a view to defeat the provisions of the ALC Act. Thus by proceedings dated 09.11.1979 of the Deputy Collector, the ALC proceedings were concluded. Thereupon the right and title entry No. 1950 was entered in the revenue records in the name of the appellants in respect of the land in question and the same was certified on 15.11.1979. The said entry was certified finally in view of the earlier notice issued under Section 135(d) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as "the BLR Code") Code and no objections were raised. On 06.12.1979, the competent authority and the Additional Collector, ULC issued a declaration in exercise of power under Section 21(1) of the ULC Act after verifying the title of the appellant holding that the appellant was entitled to retain the vacant land comprised in all the above survey nos. admeasuring 930 acres and 4 gunthas for the purpose of construction of dwelling units under Section 21 of the ULC Act. Pursuant to the sanction, the appellants have already developed the lands wherein about 7000 dwelling units have already come up. Presently, the appellant is seeking no objection permission and sanction of lay out plan in respect of the land situated in survey No. 469/1 which could not be developed earlier since there existed a reservation on this land for Bhavnagar University.

The Bhavnagar Municipality filed a writ petition being special Civil Appeal No. 941 of 1980 for quashing and setting aside the order dated 06.12.1979 granting exemption to the lands and sanctioning the scheme under Section 21 of the ULC Act and a further direction to the authorities to adjudicate and decide the ALC Act proceedings. The High Court passed an interim order in favour of the Municipality restraining the appellants from implementing the scheme. Various affidavits were filed by the competent authority and the Deputy Collector under the ULC Act and the Deputy Collector to the Revenue Department stating that the title of the appellant to the land in question was verified and the same was clear, authentic and valid and the orders passed by the Deputy Collector under the ALC Act and the competent authority under the ULC Act were valid and legal. The High Court, thereafter, vacated the ad-interim relief granted earlier to the Municipality and also permitted the appellant herein (respondent No.8 therein) would be at liberty to construct at its own risk and cost without claiming equities. The said order is quoted below:

He further submitted that the writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court in SCA No. 10108 of 1994 with regard to the land in Survey No. 469/1 which was reserved for Bhavnagar University since 1965 under the Town Planning Act had lapsed and for further declaration that the land is free for development. The Collector of Bhavnagar issued a suo motu notice even though the issues are covered by the earlier proceedings and finally decided by the authorities in favour of the appellant. The suo motu notice was challenged by the appellant in the High Court. The High Court quashed the show cause notice dated 25.1.1996 of the Collector seeking to revise the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 10.7.1992. The High Court also observed that it was unfair, unjust and too late in the day for the Collector to raise various issues such as illegal sale of bid land, breach of Saurshtra Gharkhed Ordinance, ALC Act etc. which were closed and decided three and a half years earlier. It was also submitted that the High Court by a separate judgment rejected all the contentions raised by the Municipal Corporation in Special Civil Application No. 941 of 1980 relating to sanction of ULC Act Scheme and the ALC Act proceedings. The Court also declared that the designation of the land bearing Survey No. 469/1 reserved for Bhavnagar University had lapsed. Thus Mr. Rohtagi submitted that the issue of ULC Act and ALC Act was concluded by the above judgment. After referring to the judgment of this Court, Mr. Rohtagi submitted that this Court has already granted permission to the appellant to construct dwelling units on the land in accordance with the approved or sanctioned Scheme but such construction would be at its own risk and shall not be a factor in its favour. This Court also in the contempt proceedings directed the authorities to sanction the plan of Survey No. 469/1 and make revenue entries in the revenue record and collect the dues related to the said land. This Court dismissed the civil appeal preferred by the Municipal Corporation as withdrawn after a detailed hearing. Our attention was further invited to the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. & Ors. (supra) by which this Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Bhavnagar University. Therein the learned counsel appearing for the University contended having regard to the scope and purport of the said Act, the High Court must be held to have erred insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the objects of an integrated, incorporated and interdependent development plan, cannot be fully achieved within a period of ten years and in that view of the matter when steps are taken for revision of the final development plan, the period specified in sub-section(2) of Section 20 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (27 of 1976) would get automatically extended. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein who was the respondent therein contended that the right of an owner of the land cannot be kept under suspension for a long time and the period of ten years specified by the legislature must be held to be a reasonable one, and thus by no stretch of imagination only by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, the period specified therein can be extended. After considering the rival submissions, this Court dismissed the civil appeals filed by the University. Thus the proceedings under the above Act has also reached its finality by the judgment of this Court in Bhavnnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. (supra). The various issues regarding the right and title of the land in question were finally concluded by the judgment. A further review petition filed by the State Government was also dismissed by this Court on 6.2.2003. After the conclusion of all the above proceedings, nine show cause notices were issued by the Collector raising the very same issues but in a different tone and form. Mr. Rohtagi submitted that all the disputes between the appellant and the respondents were finally completed between the parties in view of the cabinet decision of the Government of Gujarat and the subsequent withdrawal of the writ petitions filed by the appellant herein. Therefore, he would submit that the authorities have no right or jurisdiction to issue show cause notices in regard to the earlier proceedings finally decided in favour of the appellant to which the respondents were also parties. Concluding his arguments, Mr. Rohtagi submitted that the authorities have failed to act on the directions issued by this Court. The appellant moved the High Court for clarification and also initiated contempt proceedings. Mr. Rohtagi also submitted that the authorities must be directed to issue the planning permit for construction of the houses with reference to Survey No. 469/1 immediately and on payment of necessary charges etc. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the principal issue which directly and substantially arose and which was decided by the High Court in SCA No. 1032 of 1996 was in respect of the validity of mutation entry No. 1950 and that what was finally and conclusively decided by the High Court in its aforesaid judgment was a controversy relating to the validity of mutation entry arising directly and substantially in the writ petition and the observations relating to various other issues/contraventions under other independent legislations were, at the best, collateral and incidental observations made only with a view to hold that after a long lapse of time, the Collector could not have sought to disturb the mutation entry on the strength of the contravention of the provisions of other enactments referred to above. Similarly, the principal issue which arose for the consideration of the High Court in SCA No. 941 of 1980 at the behest of the Bhavnagar Muncipality was the legality and validity of the order dated 6.12.1979 passed by the authority concerned sanctioning the weaker section scheme under Section 21 of the ULC Act in favour of the appellant-Company. Ultimately, the High Court while dismissing the writ petition held that the alleged excess land which was allowed to be retained by the appellant-Company for implementing the Scheme for weaker sections under Section 21 of the ULC Act would remain unaffected by the provisions of Section 3 of the ULC Repeal Act and that the possession thereof shall be allowed to be continued with the land owners. Mr. Sundaram further contended that the land admeasuring 76 acres 39 guntas of Survey No. 469/1 is concerned, the same was never part of the aforesaid scheme and that, therefore, the same was never governed by the ULC Act prior to its repeal. Referring to show cause notices, it was submitted that at no point of time, the proceedings for the violation of the provisions of the Vid Formula for illegal sale of the land initiated against the appellant-Company and were ever concluded till the rendition of order dated 29/30.8.2003. Likewise, at no point of time, the proceedings for violation of the provisions of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Agricultural Ordinance, 1949 had ever been concluded.

4) The declaration issued by the competent authority and Additional Collector under the ULC Act, in exercise of the power under Section 21(1) of the ULC Act after verifying the title of the appellant in respect of the above survey numbers is final and conclusive.
5) The writ petition filed by the Bhavnagar Municipality for quashing and setting aside the order dated 6.12.1979 granting exemption to the lands and sanctioning the scheme under section 21 of the ULC Act were valid and legal.
6) It is not in dispute that the appellant have raised construction on the lands and the lands have been fully developed, save and except, the lands in Survey No. 469/1.