Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The learned Counsel submitted that it is an admitted fact that in the revenue records the names of the petitioner and his family members are shown in respect of the lands in relation to which breach is alleged and that all the construction is within the said lands. It was submitted that the basis of the order of detention is the allegation that the petitioner has sold part of the common plot, which admittedly formed a part of the lands owned by the petitioner. It was contended that merely because a parcel of land is demarcated as a common plot in the lay out plan, the owner does not lose his title over the said land. It was submitted that that the petitioner who had constructed upon his own property can in no manner be labelled as a property grabber. It was further submitted that even as per the Government resolution relied upon by the respondent authorities the owner is not divested of his ownership in the common plot, he merely ceases to have the power to exercise any rights over the said property. It was further submitted that this was not a case in which the common plot was done away with and the entire property was constructed upon leaving no scope for a common plot. It was pointed out that provision was made for a common plot of similar size elsewhere and that regularization had been sought for. It was further submitted that the detention order pertained to two survey numbers namely survey numbers 69 and 70. It was stated that the land admeasuring 322 sq. mts. forming part of common plot of survey number 69 as per the original lay out plan which totally admeasures of 2160 sq. mts had been sold, whereas the common plot of survey number 70 was open vacant land. It was contended that the rights of the petitioner in respect of the land of the common plot may be truncated but he does not cease to be the owner thereof. That the petitioner had not taken over any one else's land; that, none of the activities alleged against the petitioner in the order of detention can even be labelled as offences. It was vehemently urged that the main ground for making the order of detention was the sale of 322 sq. mts of land forming part of the common plot as per the N.A. permission lay-out plan, which could by no stretch of imagination be said to be an activity of property grabbing or an activity which has any nexus to the maintenance of public order, so as to warrant such drastic action like subjecting the petitioner to detention under the provisions of the Act.

10. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Gori submitted that the activities of the petitioner fall within the definition of property grabber as envisaged under Section 2(h) of the Act. It was vehemently contended that the petitioner had made unauthorized construction over margin land for open space as well as the common plot and has unauthorisedly disposed of the land forming part of the common plot and road, and as such, could be said to be a property grabber in terms of Section 2(h) of the Act.

1. It was submitted that the petitioner was found to be indulging in certain nefarious activities, which were found to be against the public at large, and such activities were likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. It was submitted that the activities of the petitioner, squarely fall within the criteria mentioned in the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Act and accordingly the petitioner had rightly been labelled as a property grabber".

2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader referred to the sale deeds annexed as Annexure R-3 collectively to the affidavit in reply of the detaining authority, to point out that a clause had been stipulated in the said sale deeds wherein it had been stated that as per the revised plan there was no common plot and that the purchaser had understood and accepted the situation of the land as per the new revised plan, and that, no objection or dispute shall be raised by the purchaser in relation to the common plot. It was submitted that the petitioner had deceived the public at large by posing to the authority that the particular land is his own land and there is no common plot.

17. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Himatlal Sheth are owners of lands bearing survey numbers 69 and 70 and that the common plot and internal road are also part of the said survey numbers. It is the case of the detaining authority that once the lay out plan is sanctioned, the lands forming part of common plot and internal roads cease to belong to the original owner under the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 13th August 1993 annexed as Annexure-RV to the affidavit in reply. It is in these circumstances, that the petitioner has been held to be a property grabber. It is the case of the detaining authority that the petitioner has grabbed lands forming part of the common plot and the internal road and therefore, falls within the purview of property grabber as defined under the Act.