State Of Gujarat vs Karshanbhai Valjibhai Rabari
2024 Latest Caselaw 431 Guj

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Karshanbhai Valjibhai Rabari on 17 January, 2024

Author: Sunita Agarwal

Bench: Sunita Agarwal

                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




       C/CA/229/2024                              ORDER DATED: 17/01/2024

                                                                                    undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 229 of
                                   2024
              In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 36908 of 2023
                                   With
                F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 36908 of 2023
            In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10377 of 2012
                                   With
                CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023
              In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 36908 of 2023
             In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10377 of 2012
==========================================================
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
                                  Versus
                       KARSHANBHAI VALJIBHAI RABARI
==========================================================
Appearance:
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KRUTIK PARIKH AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================

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

                              Date : 17/01/2024
                               ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. There is absolutely no explanation of inordinate delay of more than 10 years in presentation of the instant Appeal, wherein the judgment and order dated 22.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge has been sought to be challenged. We may note that the office report with regard to the computation of delay in presentation of the Appeal is incorrect, in as much as, the Appeal was presented along with the Delay Condonation Application on 15.12.2023 and it was got registered on 12.01.2024. Having perused the averments in the Delay Condonation Application, we find that there is no explanation, much less proper explanation to condone the delay.

                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/CA/229/2024                                  ORDER DATED: 17/01/2024

                                                                                         undefined

2. Coming on merits, we may record that in the proceedings initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1976), vide order dated 29.03.1989/21.04.1989, the Deputy Collector (ULC)/Competent Authority declared 4160 sq. mtrs. of land belonging to the predecessor in interest of the original petitioners, i. e. respondents herein, as excess land ignoring the exemption enjoyed by the original land owners. There is no dispute about the fact that an Appeal under Section 33 of the Act of 1976 was filed before the Urban Land Tribunal, i. e. Appeal No. Ahmedabad/26 of 1993. By the order dated 30.03.1994, the Tribunal had allowed the Appeal and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector(ULC)/Competent Authority holding that the land owners did not have any excess vacant land and finalized Form No.1 as closed, accordingly. Indisputably, the order dated 30.03.1994 passed by the Urban Land Tribunal had not been challenged further and attained finality. The original petitioners/respondents herein are the purchasers of the land in question vide registered sale deed dated 25.06.2007, pursuant to which, the mutation entry No.3896 came to be made on 23.11.2007.

3. It seems that the dispute has arisen on an application moved by the purchaser, i. e. the original petitioners under Section 65 of the Land Revenue Code, seeking grant of non-agriculture permission, for residential use. The said application was not decided for more than one year and hence, the original petitioners filed a Writ Petition, i. e. Special Civil Application No.14409 of 2010, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 29.10.2010, directing the respondent No.3 therein, i. e. the Collector to decide the application of the original petitioners within a period of two

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/229/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2024

undefined

months from the date of the order. It seems that pursuant to the order of this Court, the Collector, vide communication dated 25.02.2011 addressed to the Commissioner, Land Reforms, requested to take necessary actions with regard to the deletion of the land of the petitioners from the list of the excess land held by the State Government. By means of the said communication, the order dated 30.03.1994 passed by the Tribunal was brought to the notice of the Commissioner, Land Reforms. At this stage, the original petitioners filed another writ petition, i. e. Special Civil Application No.8506 of 2011, seeking for a direction to the Collector to decide the issue pertaining to deletion of entry of the subject land bearing survey No.164 situated at Gota, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad from the list of excess lands maintained by the State Government under the provisions of the Act of 1976.

4. In the proceedings before this Court, as is evident from the order dated 08.11.2011, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State had admitted that there cannot be a dispute that the order of the Ceiling Authority under the Act of 1976 has attained finality as the same had not been challenged by the State Government. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the same would not confer any title or any right in favour of the original administrator or transferee and the petitioners, who are transferees based on the sale deed, would not be entitled to claim deletion of the entry, has been pressed before us by Mr. Krutik Parikh, the learned Assistant Government Pleader to impress upon us that it was noted by this Court in the previous round of litigation that the order dated 30.03.1994 passed by the Tribunal under the Act of 1976 having attained finality, would have not bearing on the rights of the land owner or the subsequent

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/229/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2024

undefined

purchasers i. e. the petitioners herein. We find inherent fallacy in the arguments of the learned AGP for the simple reason that in the proceedings under the Act of 1976, the dispute was between the land owner and the State Government. The order of vesting of the land with the State Government in view of the declaration of excess land with the land owner was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal, which has categorically held that the land owner did not possess any excess land, to be declared as such under the Act of 1976. With this order of the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1976, the dispute relating to declaration of excess land and vesting thereof with the State Government had attained finality, in as much as, the State Government, for the reason best known to it, had decided not to challenge it further. The dispute inter-se parties once attained finality, cannot be reopened on any assertion of the learned Advocate General or any dispute raised in the subsequent proceedings.

5. The fact remains that with the order dated 30.03.1994, the dispute pertaining to declaration of the land in question being excess under the ceiling limits and under the Act of 1976 has been brought to its logical end. No further issue could be raised on behalf of the State Government in the writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking for quashing of the communication dated 21.07.2011 and 15.07.2011 of the Section Officer, Revenue Department, Gujarat addressed to the Collector, Ahmedabad and the communication of the competent authority and the Additional Collector, Ahmedabad that the possession of the land bearing survey No.164 has been taken over on behalf of the State Government on 19.03.1993 and the same has not been returned back till the Repeal Act came into force in the year 1999.

                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/CA/229/2024                              ORDER DATED: 17/01/2024

                                                                                   undefined

6. For the above noted facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition and quashing the aforesaid communications.

7. For the above discussion, the present Appeal is liable to the dismissed both on the grounds of inordinate unexplained delay of 10 years on the part of the appellant, as well as on merits. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. The connected Civil Applications are also disposed of, accordingly.

8. Before parting with this judgment, we record our strong exception to the manner in which the Letters Patent Appeals are repeatedly being filed in this Court after inordinate delays of 10 years or more and without any proper explanation. The casual approach in presentation of Appeals adding to the burden of litigation in this Court is to be curbed, immediately.

9. This order be brought to the notice of the learned Additional Advocate General, as also the Law Secretary to take necessary steps at their ends.

(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)

cmk