Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The said litigation is now being conducted by the Power of Attorney Holder of the Petitioners / Appellants - 4 brothers who were claiming through the Will dated 30.5.1974 by one Anamisharan Brahmbhatt and who seems to be introduced in this litigation in the year 2013 only and whose shoddy role has come under critical comments by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.

4. The litigation under the ULC Act, 1976 actually started and bloomed out of proportion after the Repeal of the Act itself on 30.3.1999 in the State of Gujarat in pursuance of the enactment of Urban Land Ceiling Repeal Law by Parliament enacted on 18.3.1999 and the State of Gujarat adopted the same in view of Article 252 of the Constitution of India with effect from 30.3.1999 and because of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 providing for the pending proceeding under the ULC Act, 1976 to be treated as abated, the spree of litigation, started by various stakeholders, C/LPA/941/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DT. 25.3.21 RAVHJIBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL v. COMPETENT OFFICER & DY COLLECTOR In Re: ULC Act, 1976 : Litigation by P/A : FB Followed bona fide or other type of persons viz. land grabbers or buyers of litigation who made all efforts to show that possession under Section 10(5) / 10(6) of the land in question declared surplus or excess under the ULC Act, 1976 was actually never taken and they continued to be in possession and therefore, the proceedings should be treated as abated and the land should continue to vest in the land­holders or such successive purchasers, Agreement­ holders or persons claiming under unproved or unsubstantiated Wills, Power of Attorney Holders, etc. The length of litigation and series of adjournments in such cases with the ever increasing prices of the land in the meanwhile made this area of litigation far more 'valuable' litigation and such cases fought with all possible weapons in the arsenals of litigants and lawyers.

6. The Petitioners preferred the present Special Civil Application No.2206 of 1986 aggrieved by the said order dated 25.9.1985 and it was claimed before the learned Single Judge in present Special Civil Application in the first round argued by Mr.Jitendra M. Patel, learned counsel himself that despite service of Notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, 1976 and possession allegedly taken over on 19.9.1985, since all the four Petitioners were not served with the last Notice in the series of such Notices under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, 1976 dated C/LPA/941/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DT. 25.3.21 RAVHJIBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL v. COMPETENT OFFICER & DY COLLECTOR In Re: ULC Act, 1976 : Litigation by P/A : FB Followed 31.8.1985 though, the earlier such Notices under Section 10(5) were served admittedly on all four of them, but since the possession was taken over on 19.9.1985 in pursuance of the last Notice dated 31.8.1985 only, which was not served on all four of them, therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Hari Ram [(2013) 4 SCC 280], the land in question could not be deemed to have vested in the State under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, 1976 and the State cannot be said to have taken over the valid possession de facto under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, 1976 and therefore, all four co­owners of the land under the Will of Javerbai, they were entitled to challenge the said action of the State. The learned Single Judge (Coram: B.C. Patel, J.) disposed of this writ petition being Special Civil Application No.2206 of 1986 in the first instance on 16.6.2000 treating the proceedings as abated in view of Repeal of 1976 Act but the Letters Patent Appeal No.81 of 2002 filed by State came to be allowed by the Division Bench (Coram: J.N. Bhatt & Akshay H. Mehta, JJ.) on 9.5.2002 which held as under:

10. On the other hand, Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has ad­seriatium pointed out that the C/LPA/941/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DT. 25.3.21 RAVHJIBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL v. COMPETENT OFFICER & DY COLLECTOR In Re: ULC Act, 1976 : Litigation by P/A : FB Followed proceedings under the ULC Act, 1976 stood completed in accordance with the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976. He submitted that the Declaration in Form No.6 was filed by Ravhjibhai Chhotabhai Patel himself on 27.8.1982 whereon the Draft order of the Competent Authority was passed on 8.10.1982 and under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act, 1976 on 30.12.1982. He further submitted that the Final Statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act, 1976 was made on 21.12.1983 and the land was acquired by the State under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, 1976 on 15.2.1983. The Notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, 1976 vesting the land in question free from all encumbrances in the State was issued on 9.6.1983 and in pursuance of the Notices under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, 1976 dated 29.1.1985, the possession of the land in question was taken over on 19.9.1985. Therefore, all the contentions raised by learned counsel for the Appellants / Petitioners are without any substance and deserve to be rejected.

26. That as far as the proceeding under provisions of the ULC Act, 1976 is concerned, in the present case, we are satisfied that the same stood concluded and closed way back in the year 1985 itself and therefore, there was no occasion to claim that the possession continued to be with the land holders viz. these four brothers and mere revenue entry continuing in the name of Javerbai does not upset the declaration of vesting of land in the State under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, 1976 nor the factum of possession taken over by the Competent Authorities under Section 10(5) / 10(6) of the ULC Act, 1976. The alleged minor irregularity of non­serving of the Notices under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, 1976 on all the four brothers though admittedly C/LPA/941/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DT. 25.3.21 RAVHJIBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL v. COMPETENT OFFICER & DY COLLECTOR In Re: ULC Act, 1976 : Litigation by P/A : FB Followed some of such notices were served on all four of them or that the possession was taken in the absence of these brothers at the site on the date of taking over the possession, is of no consequence and the law in this regard has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma (supra) which has been followed by this Court in the case of Heirs of Dec. Jethabhai Ishwarbhai (supra) distinguishing the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Ram (supra). The relevant extract of the judgment in the case of Heirs of Dec. Jethabhai Ishwarbhai (supra) is quoted below for ready reference: