Dharmendrasinh Batuksinh Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 7644 Guj

                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/WPPIL/16/2023                          ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023

                                                                               undefined




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) (WRIT PETITION (PIL)) NO. 16 of
                        2023

=================================================
           DHARMENDRASINH BATUKSINH JADEJA
                              Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
=================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARAT T RAO(697) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
 for the Opponent(s) No. 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,4,5,6,7,8,9
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP
for the Opponent(s) No. 1
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Opponent(s) No. 17,3
=================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
      JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
      and
      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P.
      MAYEE

                         Date : 16/10/2023

                     ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.

JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. On the prayer made by Shri B. T. Rao, learned advocate for

the petitioner seeking adjournment in the matter to seek instructions

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/WPPIL/16/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023

undefined

from the petitioner, we are not inclined to grant any adjournment

noticing that three Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the

same orders have already been dismissed in the past.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised with regard to

maintainability of the instant PIL, filed in the month of February

2023, challenging the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the

respondent - State for allotment of land bearing Survey No. 167/1 of

Village: Lothada, District: Rajkot to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein.

From the statement made in the writ petition, it may be noted that

the petitioner herein is claiming to be an agriculturist having

agriculture land in Village: Vadali, Taluka and District: Rajkot,

bearing Survey No. 23, admeasuring 1 Hector, 81 Are, and 10 Sq.

mtrs. and claims that he is doing agricultural activity therein. The

contention in the writ petition is that the petitioner came across

through various news reports in various newspapers at Rajkot about

a big scam being made by highest level officers of the Revenue

Department in connivance with the political leaders and land brokers

for getting valuable land at the village in question. The statements

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/WPPIL/16/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023

undefined

made in para 4(A) in this regard are vague. It is then stated that

respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are illegal allottees of 51 acres of land by

the Government and the entire proceedings was undertaken by the

so-called power of attorney holders of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The

contentions in the writ petition are, thus, about the merits of the

allotment order passed in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. We

may note that a categorical objection has been taken by the

respondent No. 2 herein namely the District Collector, Rajkot about

the maintainability of the instant PIL with the assertion that a PIL

namely Writ Petition (PIL) No. 66 of 2022 challenging the very

same order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the State authority has been

dismissed, which was against the heirs of the respondent Nos. 4 and

5 herein. A perusal of the judgment and order dated 18.08.2022

passed by this Court in the aforesaid petition indicates that the said

petition was filed by some journalist and RTI activists claiming to be

the resident of District: Rajkot. It was noted therein that the land in

question was allotted in favour of the legal heirs of Smt. Hansa Devi.

The claim of Hansa Devi, her husband Ghanshyamsinhji and his

three brothers were pending before the appropriate government. It

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/WPPIL/16/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023

undefined

was further noted that the erstwhile Ruler of Saurashtra State namely

Shri 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 virture of the said Act, the land

owned by them stood vested with the State Government and the Act

itself provided for the erstwhile owners of the land being allotted

alternate land. Findings returned by this Court in the judgment and

order dated 18.08.2022 itself indicate that this Court having gone

through the merits of the allotment order, has made the following

observations:

"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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/WPPIL/16/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/WPPIL/16/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023

undefined

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 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 nonagricultural purpose have also taken note of the order passed by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/WPPIL/16/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023

undefined

coordinate Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.150 of 2018 or in other words revenue authorities have not passed the order of conversion 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."

3. The second PIL namely Writ Petition (PIL) No. 150 of 2018

filed by another person claiming to the member of Scheduled Caste

community engaged in agricultural activity residing in nearby

village: Ramod, Kotda Sangani, has been dismissed by us by the

judgment and order dated 13.09.2023, wherein the findings returned

by this Court in the judgment and order dated 18.08.2022 have been

noted.

                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/WPPIL/16/2023                                ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023

                                                                                    undefined

4. The third petition namely Writ Petition (PIL) No. 146 of 2018

filed by Divyeshkumar Girdharlal Sorathiya challenging the very

same orders dated 11.10.2017 and 17.10.2017, has been dismissed as

withdrawn vide order dated 09.01.2019 on the statement made by the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners therein.

5. Taking note of the above, once we find that there is no reply to

the preliminary objection raised by the respondent No. 2 about the

maintainability of the present PIL and that, three PILs filed in the

year 2018 and 2022; respectively, had been dismissed by this Court,

the present PIL is liable to the dismissed as misconceived. We

accordingly dismiss the present PIL as misconceived.

[ Sunita Agarwal, CJ. ]

[ Aniruddha P. Mayee, J. ] hiren /24