Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Hansrajbhai Laljibhai Pitroda on 3 March, 2021
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/LPA/911/2015 JUDGMENT Dt. 03.03.2021
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s) Versus HANSRAJBHAI LALJIBHAI PITRODA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.911 of 2015
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10465 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==============================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==============================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
Versus
HANSRAJBHAI LALJIBHAI PITRODA
==============================================================
Appearance:
MR KM ANTANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER (1) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
Page 1 of 8
Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 05:58:07 IST 2022
C/LPA/911/2015 JUDGMENT Dt. 03.03.2021
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s) Versus HANSRAJBHAI LALJIBHAI PITRODA
MR PM BHATT(183) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 03/03/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. Heard Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Government Counsel for
the Appellant - State of Gujarat and Mr. P. M. Bhatt,
learned Counsel for the Respondent.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the State
challenging the Oral Judgment of the learned Single
Judge dated 17.10.2014.
3. The facts in brief are as under:
* One Munshiram D. Anand, who was the Original
Land Owner vide an Application dated 20.10.1955
C/LPA/911/2015 JUDGMENT Dt. 03.03.2021
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s) Versus HANSRAJBHAI LALJIBHAI PITRODA
requested the State to grant permission to change
the use of land bearing Survey No.13 at
Jamnagar. By an Order dated 29.9.1958 a fresh
Sanad was issued by the Collector. The Original
Owner sold the land in the year 1961 to a
partnership firm, M/s. Swastik Automobiles by
registered Sale Deed. Construction was carried out
after the sale of land by the Appellants on
permission being granted by the Competent
Authority. On 25.3.1994, the Additional Collector
issued a Show Cause Notice to the land owner and
the partners for alleged breach of Condition No.4 of
the Sanad of 1958. A Reply to the Show Cause
Notice was filed. By an Order dated 13.4.2007, the
State observed that the request for regularization of
the Ownership could be considered on the
Petitioner's depositing an amount of premium fixed
at Rs.34,00,816/.
C/LPA/911/2015 JUDGMENT Dt. 03.03.2021
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s) Versus HANSRAJBHAI LALJIBHAI PITRODA
* The Petitioner approached this Court with a prayer
that the Orders dated 13.4.2007 and 20.2.2007 be
declared as arbitrary and unreasonable. A further
prayer was made for a direction to the Respondent
Authorities to assess the premium on the basis of
market price of the land as on 17.6.1996.
4. The learned Single Judge allowed the Petition i.e. Special
Civil Application No.10465 of 2007 vide Order dated
17.10.2014. The relevant paragraph Nos.7 & 8 are
reproduced hereunder:
"7. As it transpires from the record, the main issue
is with regard to the breach of conditions
for which the suo motu powers are sought
to be exercised after 34 years. Admittedly, after
purchase of the land by the partnership firm,
necessary applications were made for
development alongwith plan and
permissions have been granted and
development has taken place. However, after a
C/LPA/911/2015 JUDGMENT Dt. 03.03.2021
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s) Versus HANSRAJBHAI LALJIBHAI PITRODA
lapse of long time in purported exercise of suo
motu powers, the notice came to be issued and
the proceedings have been initiated to cancel
such Sanad. It is required to be mentioned that
earlier also the petition was filed being
Special Civil Application No.15558 of
2005, which was disposed of by the High
Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Akil
Kureshi) vide its order dated 01.08.2005
and it has been observed that:
"In view of the fact that even as per the
Collector, the final decision is to be taken
by the Government, it is directed that
the application of the petitioner for
regularization of land in question shall be
considered by the newly added respondent no.4.
In facts of the present case at what rate the
petitioner should be asked to pay premium
should also be considered by respondent no.4
while bearing in mind the contention of the
petitioner that since 1996 he had indicated his
preparedness to pay premium as per the
order passed by the Collector. In
addition to the pending application of the
C/LPA/911/2015 JUDGMENT Dt. 03.03.2021
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s) Versus HANSRAJBHAI LALJIBHAI PITRODA
petitioner, if the petitioner makes a
representation within a period of two weeks
from today, same shall also be taken
into account by the respondent no.4 at the time
of deciding the issue.........."
Thus, the aspect of exercise of powers at belated
stage after 34 years, which would not be
justified in light of the settle legal
position of law.
8. Thus, it has also been observed that
things which have been settled cannot be
permitted to be unsettled after such a long
lapse of time. Therefore, the very exercise of
such powers at belated stage, cannot be
sustained. However, as referred to in the
petition as well as in the papers that even in
the year 1996 the petitioner was ready and
willing to pay the premium and therefore the
High Court while passing the order in
Special Civil Application No.15558 of 2005
has made observations referring to the same
aspect. Thus, it has to be taken in proper
C/LPA/911/2015 JUDGMENT Dt. 03.03.2021
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s) Versus HANSRAJBHAI LALJIBHAI PITRODA
prospective when the petitioner is ready and
willing to pay make payment of the
premium by depositing the amount of
Rs.34,00,816/ as per the communication dated
20.02.2007. The present petition deserves to be
allowed and the prayer for regularization on
payment of such premium deserves to be
granted."
5. It is well settled that any exercise of suo motu powers
beyond reasonable period of time need not be entertained.
On the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge in our
opinion rightly so did not entertain the exercise of suo
motu powers at the hands of the Respondents for breach
of conditions of the year 1961 by issuance of a Show
Cause Notice of 25.3.1994.
6. Perusal of the Order of the learned Single Judge would
indicate that the learned Single Judge has observed that
when the Respondent Original Petitioner is ready and
willing to pay premium by depositing an amount of
C/LPA/911/2015 JUDGMENT Dt. 03.03.2021
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s) Versus HANSRAJBHAI LALJIBHAI PITRODA
Rs.34,00,816/, the Petition deserves to be allowed on
payment of the premium so demanded. We do not see any
infirmity in the Order impugned.
7. In accordance with the directions issued by the learned
Single Judge on the Respondent depositing the amount of
premium of Rs.34,00,816/ before the Collector, Jamnagar
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this Order, the Respondent Collector
and / or the State Government shall pass necessary
Orders regarding regularization of the land in question of
the Respondent.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the Letters Patent
Appeal filed by State is dismissed.
[ DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. ]
[ BIREN VAISHNAV, J. ]
VATSAL S. KOTECHA
