Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

After enforcement of the provisions under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 ("ULC Act" for short), Narendrabhai filled in form no.1 under section 6(1) of the ULC Act, declaring his holding including the lands in question.

Competent authority, by order dated 31st December, 1987, declared the aforesaid lands as excess vacant lands. The said Narendrabhai approached the appellate authority by filing an HC-NIC Page 4 of 22 Created On Fri Aug 18 08:33:27 IST 2017 appeal by challenging the quantum of compensation awarded under the ULC Act. The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate Tribunal by order dated 18.8.1988.

9. Learned single Judge, mainly by recording a finding that both the petitioners have tried to misuse the process of law by filing proceedings and taking the courts for a ride, dismissed both the petitions.

10. So far as the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1457 of 2016 is concerned, it is held by learned single Judge that the appellants-petitioners, right from the beginning have tried to take undue advantage of their own wrongs, inasmuch as though form no.1 filled in by Narendrabhai Jethabhai under section 6(1) of the ULC Act, 1976 was already finalized by the competent authority vide order dated 31.12.1987 and the appeal preferred before the Tribunal was dismissed on 18.8.1988, possession of the lands in question was taken over by the government. The learned single Judge has found that in view of the provisions under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1457 of 2016 could not have claimed any right in respect of the property held benami against the persons in whose names the property was held, as per section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and in view of such provision, the claim of the said appellants-petitioners to be the real owners of the lands after the lands had already vested in the government under the ULC Act, 1976, was not maintainable. Further, mainly on the ground that possession of the lands in question was taken by the State authorities during the year 1987-88 and further that such possession was not handed over back after the order dated 5.4.2005, the learned single Judge held that proceedings under the ULC Act, 1976 HC-NIC Page 12 of 22 Created On Fri Aug 18 08:33:27 IST 2017 would not survive. Learned single Judge further referring to the provision under section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 held that as the lands were legally vested in the State Government before the Repealed Act came into force, all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Principal Act pending immediately before the Court or other Court stood abated, and therefore, it is not possible to grant any relief as prayed for. Thus, Special Civil Application No. 9886 of 2007 was dismissed.

14. Shri Y.N. Oza, learned Senior Counsel, appearing with Shri R.K. Savjani, learned counsel for the appellants in Letters HC-NIC Page 14 of 22 Created On Fri Aug 18 08:33:27 IST 2017 Patent Appeal No. 1457 of 2016 submits that the judgment passed by learned single Judge is contrary to the judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 318 of 1995 which has attained finality. It is contended that when the Division Bench of this Court, by setting aside the earlier orders declaring the lands in question as excess vacant land, directed the Competent Authority and Additional Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Rajkot to reconsider the case and when the Competent Authority has considered the case declaring only 32.52 sq.mts of land as excess vacant land, it was not open for the learned single Judge to go into the said aspect. It is submitted that finding of the learned single Judge that the appellants have tried to misuse the process of law is contrary to the facts of the case and without any basis. It is further contended that when the earlier Division Bench has considered the effect of the provisions under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and passed order, the learned single Judge ought not to have recorded any finding with reference to the provisions under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Further, it is contended that the learned single Judge erred in holding that since the possession of excess vacant land was taken into government custody during the year 1987-88, the proceedings under the ULC Act, 1976 will abate. It is contended that once the order of the Competent Authority is set aside by the Division Bench of this Court, all consequential steps, including taking possession of lands in question, will stand quashed and such finding recorded by learned single Judge is contrary to law and facts of the case. It is further contended that when the authorities took possession of the lands in question, it was excess and vacant and it was obligatory on the part of the respondent authorities to return HC-NIC Page 15 of 22 Created On Fri Aug 18 08:33:27 IST 2017 such excess vacant land when the Competent Authority passed subsequent order declaring that land admeasuring only 32.52 sq.mts is excess out of the entire lands. It is submitted that in the absence of any valid authority in favour of third party from the owners, it is not open for the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 869 of 2017 to claim title and possession based on the purchase admittedly made from third parties on the alleged instructions given by the said appellants. In the absence of any valid documents, their claim for title and possession is absolutely illegal and such stand also cannot be accepted in view of the provisions of section 5(3) of the ULC Act, 1976.

18. Deceased-Nathalal Jethabhai Damani Narendra Jethabhai Damani and Batukbhai Jethabhai Damani are real brothers. It is the case of Batukbhai and Nathabhai that they were staying in Sudan and with the money sent by them, the lands were purchased by way of registered sale deed in the year 1965 in the name of Narendra Jethabhai Damani. When the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force in 1976, Narendrabhai filed a declaration in form no.1 under section 6(1) of the ULC Act, 1976, declaring his holding including the lands in question. At the first instance, the Competent Authority HC-NIC Page 17 of 22 Created On Fri Aug 18 08:33:27 IST 2017 passed an order on 31st December, 1987, declaring the lands in question as excess vacant lands. But coming to know of the orders of the Competent Authority, Shri Batukbhai and Nathabhai filed review petition before the government under section 34 of the ULC Act, 1976. On dismissal of the said review petition, they approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 4825 of 1990 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said Special Civil Application also came to be dismissed by order dated 27.3.1995, against which, Letters Patent Appeal No. 318 of 1995 was preferred, which came to be allowed by order dated 14.3.2000, the relevant portion of which is referred by us hereinabove. From a careful perusal of the judgment, particularly para-6, it is clear that after purchase of the land by registered sale deed dated 15th November, 1965, registered deed of transfer was executed by Narendrabhai Jethabhai Damani on December 14, 1966 in favour of other two brothers making it manifest that Narendrakumar Jethabhai Damani had purchased the lands from the moneys, which were remitted by other brothers, and the appellants were real owners of the property. By extracting relevant receipts of the documents and by considering the effect of provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, a Division Bench of this court set aside the order of primary authority, directing the authorities to pass an order under section 8(4) of the ULC Act, 1976. Even after the judgment dated 14th March, 2000 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 318 of 1995, when immediate steps were not taken by the authorities, other two brothers approached this Court and ultimately the Competnt Authority passed an order on 5.4.2005, holding that Batukbhai and Nathabhai were entitled to hold one unit of 1500 sq.mts and only an extent of 32.52 HC-NIC Page 18 of 22 Created On Fri Aug 18 08:33:27 IST 2017 sq.mts of land was excess land. It is relevant to note that by virtue of the orders of the Division Bench passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 318 of 1995 and the consequential order passed by the Competent Authority dated 5.4.2005, only land to the extent of 32.52 sq.mt was declared as excess vacant land under the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976. It is true that after the earlier orders were passed, particularly, order dated 31.12.1987, by the Competent Authority, declaring the lands in question as excess vacant lands, possession was taken over by the government, but once such order of Competent Authority and after further order passed by the government rejecting the application of the appellants herein under section 34 of the Act, are set aside remanding the matter, all consequential steps will not survive. The stand of the respondents is that possession was taken over pursuant to earlier order of the Competent Authority declaring the lands as excess vacant lands, but no reason is given to retain the same with the authority, particularly in the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 318 of 1995 and consequential order dated 5.4.2005. When the judgment dated 14.3.2000 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 318 of 1995 has attained finality and further consequential order dated 5.4.2005 has also become final, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to restore the possession of the lands to the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1457 of 2016. Having regard to the orders passed by this Court, it cannot be said that the appellants have abused the process of law. At the same time, we are also not in agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge that as the lands are already vested with the State in the year 1987-88, the proceedings under the provisions of ULC Act, 1976 will abate, in view of the enforcement of provisions of the Urban Land HC-NIC Page 19 of 22 Created On Fri Aug 18 08:33:27 IST 2017 (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Once the order dated 31.12.1987 is set aside in Letters Patent Appeal No. 318 of 1995, the respondent authorities cannot claim vesting of their lands, pursuant to the said judgment. When the order of Competent Authority is quashed, all consequent steps including taking possession will stand quashed.