NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/150/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 150 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 150 of 2018
==========================================================
MANSUKHBHAI GOVINDBHAI RATHOD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PARESH H VAGHELA(3580) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SANDIP M PATEL(5649) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Opponents No. 1,2
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Opponent(s) No. 3
MR BOMI SETHNA for Applicants in Civil Application No.1/2023
MR CHINTAN DESAI for Applicants in Civil Application No.1/2023
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 4
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 13/09/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. This is a wholly misconceived Public Interest Litigation seeking for quashing of the alleged illegal allotment of Government land of Survey No.167/1 admeasuring approximately 51 Acres of Kharaba land of Village Lothada, Taluka and District Rajkot. In the writ petition, which has been filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the allottee of the land in question was not originally Page 1 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:35:35 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/WPPIL/150/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2023 undefined impleaded but later impleaded under the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by this Court.
2. The application seeking for joining as party, namely, Civil Application No.1 of 2023 has been filed by a person, who has purchased the land in question from the vendor of the original allottee. Be that as it may, the petitioner herein claims to be a member of Scheduled Caste engaged in agricultural activity, residing in a village known as Ramod - Kotda Sangani.
From a perusal of the record, thus, it seems that the petitioner is not a resident of the village in which the land in question lies.
3. We may further record that the assertions in the writ petition are that the respondent authorities had committed illegality in the allotment of the land in question, namely, Survey No.167/1 admeasuring 51 Acres of Kharaba land, in breach of the statutory rules and regulations, though the allotment of the very same land was sought by a number of persons including retired Army personnels and needy persons Page 2 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:35:35 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/WPPIL/150/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2023 undefined belonging to Scheduled Caste and their applications remained pending in the office of the Deputy Collector since the year 2007 and onwards. Names of five persons who are mentioned as applicants for allotment of the land in question as per the Notification issued by the Deputy Collector, Rajkot, dated 25.09.2007, are extracted in paragraph 4.2 of the writ petition. It is contended that the Deputy Collector did not allot the land in question to any of the above referred persons. It is then submitted that the petitioner has got an information of the scam in the matter of allotment of land of Survey No.167/1 to wealthy persons and moved applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005, dated 02.04.2018 and 08.04.2018.
4. An application before the Collector, Rajkot, for taking appropriate action in the matter of illegal allotment of the land in question dated 14.05.2018, was also moved by the petitioner which has been kept pending. After waiting for long, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present Page 3 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:35:35 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/WPPIL/150/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2023 undefined petition filed in the shape of Public Interest Litigation with the assertion that the original allottee, namely, Hansadevi Jadeja, who was later impleaded as respondent No.5 under the order passed by this Court had started construction activities and a complex has been constructed over the land in question.
5. Taking note of these facts, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot maintain the instant petition filed in the shape of Public Interest Litigation, for the reasons as follows :-
(i) Firstly, the petitioner is neither a resident of the village in question nor the applicant who sought allotment and, thus, would not fall within the meaning of "aggrieved persons".
(ii) The prospective allottees whose names have been mentioned by the petitioner in paragraph 4.2 of the writ petition are not before us. It is nowhere stated in the writ petition that they have raised any dispute before the competent Page 4 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:35:35 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/WPPIL/150/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2023 undefined authority being aggrieved by non-consideration of their applications seeking allotment of the land in question.
(iii)There is no dispute about the fact that the allotment order has been passed by the competent authority. There is no challenge to the allotment order. Moreover, the allotment order cannot be challenged by way of Public Interest Litigation that too by a person who is a rank outsider.
(iv) Any person who may be aggrieved by the allotment of the land in question in favour of respondent No.5, had a remedy to approach the competent authority being aggrieved by non-consideration of their application. In that eventuality, the requisite inquiry was required to be conducted.
All these issues cannot be examined in the Public Interest Litigation.
(v) The petitioner seems to be a busy body and the reasons for filing of the instant Public Interest Litigation seem to be some extraneous Page 5 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:35:35 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/WPPIL/150/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2023 undefined considerations. The issue raised herein cannot be said to be the issues of public importance, inasmuch as, there is an allotment order passed by the competent authority, legality and validity of which can be challenged only under the statutory provisions.
6. Before parting with this judgment, we may record that the orders of allotment dated 11.10.2017 and 17.10.2017 passed in favour of respondent No.5 had been challenged in a PIL being Writ Petition (PIL) No.66 of 2022 filed by some persons, who were news reporters and RTI activists. The said Public Interest Litigation has been dismissed noticing in paragraphs-
13, 14 and 15 as under :
"13. It could be seen from the records that land in question was allotted in favour of legal heirs of Smt.Hansadevi. As already noticed hereinabove, the claim of Hansadevi, her husband Ghanshyamsinhji and his three brothers were pending before the appropriate Government. It is an undisputed fact that erstwhile rulers of Saurasthra State namely late Sri Ghanshyamsinhji and his three brothers were owning and possessing around 2600 Acres of land on the advent of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951 and by Page 6 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:35:35 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/WPPIL/150/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2023 undefined virtue of said Act coming into force, lands owned by them stood vested with the State and the Act itself provided for erstwhile owners of the land being allotted alternate land. Hence, it resulted in an application being submitted by them for allotment of land which undisputedly received the attention of the appropriate Government at the relevant point of time resulting in allotment of lands. However, possession of said lands could not be given for reasons already noticed hereinabove. It is in this background the wife of Ghanshyamsinhji namely Smt.Hansadevi had approached this Court for a direction to consider her claim for allotment of the land. On Special Civil Application No.12432 of 2001 having been dismissed, it resulted in the said lis landing before the coordinate Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.579 of 2004 wherein appellant namely Smt.Hansadevi Ghanshyamsinhji Jadeja was granted liberty to submit a detailed representation to the State Government within a period of one month from the date of order and directed the State Government to consider said representation by passing a reasoned order and said exercise was ordered to be undertaken within a period of four months. Hence, said representation came to be considered and impugned orders of allotment of land came to be passed. As such, it cannot be gainsaid by the petitioners or any other person espousing the public cause to contend before this Court that claim of the erstwhile owners of land who had lost their land by virtue of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, were not being entitled to be allotted alternate land. It is under the provisions of the said Act the applications were submitted, prosecuted by the legal heirs Page 7 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:35:35 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/WPPIL/150/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2023 undefined of the applicants right from the year 1952 onwards till allotment which intermittently had also resulted in orders of allotment of land being passed by allotting lands in different village which did not get fructified on the ground of possession having not been delivered.
Hence, claim of the allottees cannot be held to be shallow or without any basis. On the other hand, by virtue of statutory right which flowed to them from Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951, it had resulted in their submission of applications for allotment of land and it resulted in appropriate Government allotting the lands including the subject land under the impugned orders. In that view of the matter, it has to be necessarily held that claim of the allottees was genuine and by virtue of a right which accrued to them under the Act, they had sought for allotment.
14. That apart, we notice that the land was allotted to them in the year 2017 i.e. on 11.10.2017. Neither the provisions of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951 or any other extant government resolution prohibits or restricts the allottees from alienating the said land. The said land came to be sold by the allottees under a registered Sale Deed in favour of respondent Nos.6, 7 and others on 26.04.2018 resulting in the purchasers of the land seeking for conversion of the same from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes. It is no doubt true that under Section 20, said land was allotted for agricultural purpose. However, there is no restriction placed under the Act, at the cost of repetition, it has to be noticed that there being no such embargo placed under the Act restricting the right of Page 8 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:35:35 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/WPPIL/150/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2023 undefined allottees to sell the land, the allottees have sold the lands resulting in the subsequent purchasers seeking for conversion of the same to nonagricultural purpose. Based on the said application which was said to have been opposed by certain residents of the village (not petitioners), it resulted in an order dated 26.11.2018 being passed.
Undisputedly, said order passed by the appropriate authority converting the subject land from agricultural to non- agricultural purpose (general industrial purpose) has not been challenged in this writ petition. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the order dated 11.10.2017 which is an order of allotment of land in favour of the allottees has been challenged after a period of four years. Delay defeats equity is the basic principle on which this Court exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be loath to exercise the said jurisdiction. Delay and latches will have to be necessarily explained. It is no doubt true that the constitutional Courts are not under any fetter in appropriate circumstances to ignore the delay when substantial justice is at peril. In the instant case, we do not see any such extraordinary circumstances which perforces this Court to exercise the jurisdiction particularly when there is no illegally committed by the governmental agencies in allotment of land as already observed by us hereinabove. In fact, the authorities who exercised the power to grant permission to non agricultural purpose have also taken note of the order passed by the coordinate Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.150 of 2018 or in other words revenue authorities have not passed the order of conversion Page 9 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:35:35 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/WPPIL/150/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2023 undefined blindly or they are not being aware of the order passed by the coordinate Bench. Sufficient safeguards have been provided under the said order and specifically it has been held or ordered that prior to usage of subject land to non-agricultural purposes, the holder of the plot should obtain approval/permission from the appropriate authority. Thus, sufficient safeguards have also been taken by the appropriate Government and for this reason also, it has to be necessarily held that on the ground of delay and latches, petition is liable to be dismissed.
15. That apart, we notice that order of allotment having been passed by virtue of the rights vested to the applicant under the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951 and there being no embargo placed under the said Act, for the allottees from alienating the said property, no amount of hue and cry raised by the petitioners would persuade this Court to grant the prayer sought for in the petition."
7. For all the above-noted reasons, we dismiss the present Public Interest Litigation as misconceived.
Notice stands discharged. In view of dismissal of the main petition, the connected Civil Application No.1 of 2023 would not survive and stands disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) GAURAV J THAKER Page 10 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:35:35 IST 2023