Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In exercise of the powers under s.3(1) of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 16 of 1985, for short PASA and the notification of the Govt. of Gujarat under s.3.(2) dated May 20, 1985, the District Magistrate, Rajkot by his proceedings dated September 22, 1992 ordered detention of the appellants on his finding that "from the evidence produced before me I am satisfied as per the definition of property grabber under s.2 (h) of the' PASA and considering the seriousness of your activities under s.2(1) for the unauthorised structures...... it clearly appears that you are habitual to grab the Govt. land by creating false partnership firm. People are feeling insecurity of their properties. The situation in this area is very tense and in such circumstance if any actions are taken according to law then there is great possibility of great blast and public orders likely to adversely affected. For creating such situation your illegal activities are solely liable......... Therefore, to prevent the other propels being grabbed in future by you and also to prevent the Govt. lands being grabbed in future and for the exigencies which have arisen, it is necessary to detain you as per the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 and an order has been passed therefore." With detailed reasons running into 31 pages, the detaining authority enumerated the circumstances under which the detention order came to be made. It was stated that the land measuring 58,880 sq.yards in Survey No. 5004 belonging to the Govt. has been grabbed by Girdhar Joshi and Manu Bhai Vora. Manu Bhai Vora created a false partnership firms by name "Jayaprabha Traders" to which the appellants and Prashant Manubhai Vora (Manubhai Vora' s son) are partners. The lands measuring 4,800 sq. yards in plot No. 4 known as Madir of Sheet No. 226 City Survey No. 3959 in Ward No.7 of Rajkot originally belongs to the former state. It was purchased by one gopalji D. Doshi from the former ruler for residential purpose. But within the prescribed time, as per the then existing rules, no construction was made. Consequently the State had confiscated the said property in order No. 8336 of S.Y. 1995 i.e. 1938-39. Naginadas Laxmichand Doshi and Manu Bhai Vora in collusion with City Survey Superintendent created forged documents mutating the aforesaid lands by the order of the City Survey Superintendent, dated April 28, 1968 in the name of Jayaprabha Traders. On May 6, 1969 the above partnership was created and was got registered on October 22, 1969. The appellants and Prashant M. Vora were partners therein. Manubhai Vora is the man behind the scheme. The partnership was dissolved on February 28, 1974. Yet in the name of the partnership the Govt. lands are being grabbed. The department came to know the collusive acts for the first time on August 26, 1986 and necessary particulars were collected to find whether it is a Govt. property or belongs to the aforesaid persons. The Record disclosed that it is the Govt. property and orders were issued on December 14, 1987 cancelling the mutation and also confiscated the property to the Govt. After becoming aware of the activities Manubhai Vora and Naginadas Laxmichand Joshi were detained. The appellants and Prashant M. Vora, though were given show cause notice on August 28, 1986 to appear before him for hearing, neither they availed of it nor produced any evidence in support of their claim. After considering the material the Collector exercising suo motu revisional power under Bombay Revenue Code by order dated December 14,1987 concluded that the property belongs to the Govt. and was confiscated to the State--The appellants and P.M. Vora as partners of the dissolved partnership firm and in their individual capacity filed appeal before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on February 28, 1987, diving their address CIO Economic traders, a firm of which Manu Bhai Vora and his brothers are partners. The Tribunal by orders on January 30, 1988, while suspending the implementation of the Collector's order directed that "till final disposal of this appeal status quo in respect of the lands to be maintained". Yet the appellants and P.M. Vora sold the lands to several persons in their individual capacity. The resident Dy. Collector. Rajkot made an enquiry on June 29, 1992 and recorded the statements of the purchasers which discloses that instead of maintaining status quo, the appellants individually sold away the entire 4,800 sq. yards except 500 to 600 sq. yards to diverse persons. The statements of purchasers show that the appellants assured them clear and marketable title to the lands without any encumbrance and collected about Rs. 15 lacs from the purchasers and unauthorised constructions were made. While recording the instatement and thereafter the purchasers became panicky. The acts of petitioners created tension in the area. Even on notices given to the purchasers on July 2, 1992 to produce the proof of their title, many of them made admission that they believed the s statement made by the appellants and P.M. vora and that they have been missed. They have also stated that the appellants had taken signatures on blank papers and they were fabricated. By notice dated July 8, 1992 when the appellant were called upon to appear on July 13, 1992 before the District Collector, instead of appearing before him and showing cause, they approached the Civil Court and filed O.S. No. 719 of 1992 and obtained injunction against the Distt. Collector, From those facts the detaining authority concluded that "you are not possessing any proof of your ownership in respect of the disputed land. Still, however, you have sold the disputed land and you have remained active in such scandals. You have cheated the buyers of the plots and in such conspiracy you have created baseless evidence whereby more and more people would be cheated you have given false assurance to the people regarding clear title of the plots. Thus the people have purchased lands for construction. The poor people have purchased the shops by spending their hard earned money and have purchased shops by making debts. You have played game with the lives of poor people and taking advantage of their- ignorance, and on coming to know that they have been cheated, they feel disappointed and disheartened and the atmosphere of grief has spread all over the said area and they made oral representations and requests to punish the responsible persons....... The detaining authority also referred, wherever necessary to the documentary evidence in that behalf. On subjective satisfaction from those facts the detention order came to be made. The appellants approached the Gujarat High Court in pre-detention execution stage and High Court upheld the validity of delegation order and the Act in its judgment dated 20th November, 1992; dealt with the scope of pre-detention order and dismissed the writ petitions. When special leave petitions came up for admission by order dated Feb. 1, 1993 this court directed to list the cases after the proof of surrender was filed. The appellants Navalshanker Ishwerlal Dave and Shantilal Prabhudas Dhruv after surrendering before the authorities produced its proof. Prasant Manubhai Vora, son of Manubhai Vora did not surrender. By order dated July 22, 1993 the special leave petition (Crl.) No. 110 of 1993 of Prashant Manubhai Vora was dismissed and the appellants' petitions were taken up for admission. The state filed its counter and an additional affidavit and we have heard the learned counsel on either side at length.

The contention of Shri Ganesh that the appellants as partners of Jaya Prabhu Traders whose name was mutated in the revenue records as early as April 26, 1969 are owners of the lands and lawfully in possession and suo motu revisional order passed by the Dist. Collector cancelling the mutation under Bombay Revenue Court on December 14,1987, was illegal and so it was suspended by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on January 30, 1988 which still subsists. Therefore, the appellants cannot be said to be property grabbers of their own land. The Act cannot be made applicable retrospectively from 1969. The exercise of the power under s.3(2) by the Dist. Magistrate, Rajkot is illegal. It is settled law as laid down by the Privy Council in Nirman Singh v. Rudra Patrab Narain Singh, 5 3 Indian Appeal 220 at 227 Nageshar Baksh Singh v. Mi. Ganesha, 47 Indian Appeals 57; Durga Prasad v. Ghansham Das. AIR 1948 PC 2 10-, Ramanna v. Sambamoorthy AIR 1961 A.P. 361 by A.P. High Court and by this Court in Mohinder Singh v. State of punjab and Ors., [1978] 1 SCR 177 and Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat and Ors. v. Nori Venkatarama Deek-shithulu and Ors. [1991] 2 SCR 531 that mutation of the names in the revenue record are not evidence of title thou oh may be relevant for other purposes. Equally it is settled law that in respect of open land title follows possession. The detaining authority stated in the impugned orders that for the first time the Dist. Collector, Rajkot became aware in 1987 of the grabbing of Govt. lands by the petitioners' firm, a fictitious one and that the enquiry caused in that behalf revealed that the land is in confirmed list of the government lands. Mutation was got made fraudulently in collusion with the City planning Superintendent. Accordingly the same was cancelled by exercising there visional power. The order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal was to maintain status quo. The appellants, instead of maintaining status quo, alienated the major part of the land to various persons who had averred in their statements recorded by the Resident Dy. Collector and sale deeds would show that the appellants sold the lands individually assuring clear title and non- encumbrance thereof-, permitted many of the purchasers to construct shops un-authorisedly. When questioned and opportunity was given, the appellants did not make any representation nor appeared before the Dist. Collector, Instead they invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for injunction. The purchasers became panic when became aware that they have no title to their purchased lands and their construction are unauthorised. The Resident Dy. Collector made elaborate enquiry and submitted the report. On consideration of the record he was subjectively satisfied that the activities. of the petitioner constitute property grabbers and in its background the Dist. Magistrate satisfied that their activities affected and likely to affect adversely public order and passed the impugned order. Therefore, it being a case of subjective satisfaction, we cannot enter upon adjudicating the legality of that satisfaction when we find that the impugned order is based on sufficient material and the grounds are definite and specific. The impugned order was made on detailed consideration of the material on record. The question of retrospective operation of PASA is misconceived. Therefore, it is difficult to agree with Sri Ganesh that the appellants are not property rabbits. From the definition of property grabber and the reasons in the impugned order it is clear that the appellants are property grabbers of the government land and that they created sales in favour of third parties, violating the law and the order of status quo directed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal which led to create or was likely to create disturbance to public order disturbing the even tempo in the locality. Therefore, the Dist. Magistrate subjectively satisfied that the appellants indulged in property grabbing and for the maintenance of public order the Dist. Magistrate was satisfied that the activities of the appellants have affected adversely or were likely to be affected adversely creating insecurity or feeling of insecurity among the general public of that area. Unless the appellants are detained, it is not possible to maintain public order and tardy legal procedure does not aid in maintaining public order. Accordingly the Dist. Magistrate, Rajkot exercised power of detention under s.3(1) of PASA correctly, justifiably and legally. Though the detention orders were made on September 22, 1992 the appellants and Prashant Manubhai Vora avoided execution thereof and till February 5, 1993 the detention orders remained unexecuted. Manubhai Vora chose to remain unsurrendered and obviously so far avoided execution of the orders. Therefore, we are not called upon to consider the legality of the detention order passed against him. The appellants surrendered on Feb. 5, 1993 and so the detention order was executed on Feb. 5, 1993. The dention orders mention that "You have the right to make representation to the detaining authority and also to the Govt. 1 on have also right to make written representation to the Advisory Board. You may send your representation through the Jail Superintendent to the addresses given herein." The appellants submitted their representations on Feb. 18, 1993 to the detaining authority, respondent No. 2, the State Govt., respondent No. 1, and the Advisory Board through Jail authority. The State Govt. sent the representations to the Advisory Board on Feb. 20,1993. On March 10, 1993 the Advisory Board fixed its meeting for consideration on March 22, 1993 and the Board confirmed the detention order on March 22, 1993. The State Govt. awaited the opinion of the Advisory Board and on its receipt on March 23, 1993 it was considered and the Govt. rejected the representation on March 23, 1993. It was despatched on March 29, 1993, It is stated in the written submission of the appellants that till April 29, 1993 the second appellant did not receive any reply from the State Govt. The first appellant did not receive any reply till that date from the detaining authority though the second appellant received such a reply rejecting the representation of Feb. 22, 1993. The first appellant received the reply from the State Govt. On April 6, 1993 rejecting the representation after 47 days from the date of his submitting the representation. Sri J.M. Parmar, Under Secretary, Home Department of Gujarat stated in his Addl. Affidavit that a copy of the representation from the appellants was received on Feb. 20, 1993 by which date, i.e. on Feb 18, 1993 the State Govt. had already referred the case along with the relevant material to the Advisory Board for review of the case. "The Department of Home decided to keep the representation in abeyance awaiting the opinion of the Advisory Board".