Narendrabhai Amarabhai Khachar vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 4883 Guj

    C/LPA/1165/2013                              CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/05/2022




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                  R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1165 of 2013
               In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1938 of 1984
                                     With
                  CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2013
                 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1165 of 2013
                                     With
                  R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1300 of 2013
                 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5113 of 1985
                                     With
                  CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2013
                 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1300 of 2013
                 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5113 of 1985

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Sd/-

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Sd/-

==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No to see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No of the judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

========================================================== NARENDRABHAI AMARABHAI KHACHAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance:

MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

C/LPA/1165/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/05/2022

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

Date : 13/05/2022

CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI)

1 Since the issue involved in both these

appeals is common, both these appeals are heard and

decided together.

2 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1165 of 2013,

the appellant has challenged the judgment dated

19.8.2013 rendered by the learned Single Judge in

Special Civil Application No.1938 of 1984 whereby the

learned Single Judge partly allowed the petition and

remanded back the matter to the Mamlatdar and ALT

(Ceiling) - Competent Authority under the Act to

decide the issue qua Section 6(3-B) of The Gujarat

Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (for short, `the

Act') only in view of the judgment of this Court in

the case of Khachar Godadbhai Pithubhai & Ors. vs.

The State of Gujarat reported in 2004(2) GLH 589, and

the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the cases of Nagbhai Najbhai Khachar vs. State of

C/LPA/1165/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/05/2022

Gujarat reported in 2010(10) SCC 594 and State of

Gujarat and Anr. Vs. Manoharsinhji Pradyumansinhji

Jadeja reported in 2013(2) SCC 300, and directed the

concerned authority to decide the matter on merits in

accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.

Except for the aforesaid contention, rest of the

contentions came to be rejected by the learned Single

Judge.

3 In the above writ petition, the appellant

has challenged orders dated 26.2.1981, 2.11.1991 and

3.1.1984 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT (Ceiling) -

Competent Authority under the Gujarat Agricultural

Ceiling Act, 1960, Deputy Collector and Gujarat

Revenue Tribunal, respectively. All the three

authorities below have concurrently held that the

appellant is entitled to hold only one unit i.e. 54

acres of agricultural land and declared the rest of

the land i.e. 98.15 acres as surplus agricultural

land and directed to vest the same into the

Government.

4 Letters Patent Appeal No.1300 of 2013 is

C/LPA/1165/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/05/2022

filed against the common judgment dated 30.8.2013

passed in Special Civil Application No.5113 of 1985

and connected petitions, whereby the learned Single

Judge while granting similar liberty to canvass

before the authority the submission qua applicability

of Section 6(3-B) and 6(3-C), the petition was

dismissed. However, in both the matters, the issue

considered by the learned Single Judge was whether

the bid land could have been considered as part of

the overall agricultural holding so as to bring the

holding within the purview of the Act read with

amendment or not.

5 Heard Mr. S.P.Majmudar and Mr. Nishit

Gandhi, learned advocates for the appellants and Mr.

Tirthraj Pandya, learned AGP for the State

respondents.

5.1 As far as Letters Patent Appeal No.1165 of

2013 is concerned, learned advocate for the appellant

submitted that though liberty has been granted in

favour of the appellant to canvass the issue in

respect of applicability of Section 6(3-B) of the

C/LPA/1165/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/05/2022

Act, the learned Single Judge has rejected the case

of the appellant in respect of invocation of Section

6(3-C) of the Act. Learned advocate for the appellant

further submitted that the appellant had two

daughters born after 1956 and as per the the

provisions of Section 5 of the Hindu Succession Act,

1956, the daughters will have independent rights as

coparceners and their share would not be liable for

clubbing under Section 6 of the Act. Learned advocate

for the appellants further submitted that in 2004,

the Act has been repealed, and therefore, the land in

question which is a bid land ought to have been

excluded from the provisions of the Ceiling Act.

5.2 As far as the Letters Patent Appeal No.1300

of 2013 is concerned, the learned advocate for the

appellant submitted that in view of the fact that the

Act is repealed in 2004, the learned Single Judge has

committed an error by not extending the benefit of

the repeal Act.

6 Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned AGP for the

State respondents vehemently opposed both the appeals

C/LPA/1165/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/05/2022

and submitted that in view of the decision of this

Court in the case of Khachar Godadbhai Pithubhai

(supra) and the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the cases of Nagbhai Najbhai Khachar

(supra) and Manoharsinhji Pradyumansinhji Jadeja

(supra) the bid lands are agricultural lands within

the meaning and for the purpose of the Act and once

the question about the bid land is decided by the

Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, the only aspect

which was required to be considered by the authority

was to consider the applicability of Section 6(3-B)

and 6(3-C) of the Act in respect of various ceiling

cases as per the judgments under challenge.

7 We have heard learned advocates for the

respective parties and perused the record of the

case. As far as the contention of learned advocate

for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.1165 of

2013 in respect of grant of liberty with regard to

Section 6(3-B) and 6(3-C) of the Act is concerned,

the learned Single Judge has categorically observed

in para 19 as under:

C/LPA/1165/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/05/2022

"19. The ratio of the Supreme Court and pronouncement of this Court is unequivocally clear qua reckoning of the bid land, which indicate that member of the family if are exceeding 5 in numbers, irrespective of their gender, then, each additional member is entitled for 1/5th of the allocable area and therefore, the Court has to allow the petition partly as it cannot be said that the submission, is not found in the proceedings, but the Court at the same time, is not impressive of the submission of the petitioner qua invocation of Section 6(3C), as it could be seen from the proceedings, the arguments qua mother's existence has not been canvassed in any manner nor has the same being argued or attempted to be established that mother was part of family and as it is observed in para-41 of the judgment reported in case of The State of Gujarat and Another Vs. K.S. Patel and others (supra), and in absence of any plea, it cannot be invoked Section 6(3C). This argument qua this submission in respect of Section 6(3C) is required to be rejected and is rejected."

7.1 The only contention raised in Letters

Patent Appeal No.1300 of 2013 is in respect of repeal

Act and once the Act is repealed in 2004, the benefit

of repeal Act should not be given to the appellant.

C/LPA/1165/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/05/2022

The aforesaid submission is made even in Letters

Patent Appeal No.1165 of 2013 also.

7.2 As far as the submission in respect of the

repeal Act is concerned, when the entire issue is

covered by following the decision of this Court in

the case of Khachar Godadbhai Pithubhai (supra) and

the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the cases of Nagbhai Najbhai Khachar (supra) and

Manoharsinhji Pradyumansinhji Jadeja (supra), wherein

it is categorically held that the bid land would

squarely fall within the definition of agricultural

land and once the entire issue is covered by the

aforesaid three judgments, more particularly, when

there is nothing on record to point out as to how the

repeal Act would make the aforesaid orders redundant,

we do not agree with the contentions raised by

learned advocates for the appellants.

8 In view of the above, we are in complete

agreement with the view taken by the learned Single

Judge in both the judgments. We do not find any

reason to interfere with both the judgments dated

C/LPA/1165/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/05/2022

19.8.2013 and 30.8.2013 rendered by the learned

Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos.1938 of

1984 and 5113 of 1985, respectively. Accordingly,

both the appeals fail and the same are hereby

dismissed. Consequently, all the connected civil

applications stand disposed of.

Sd/-

(R.M.CHHAYA,J)

Sd/-

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) P. SUBRAHMANYAM