Gujarat High Court
Competent Authority And Deputy ... vs Puriben Devjibhai Gajjar Since Decd. ... on 29 January, 2024
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/440/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 440 of 2024
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 37492 of 2023
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 37492 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4931 of 1992
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2023
IN
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 37492 of 2023
==========================================================
COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR (ULC)
Versus
PURIBEN DEVJIBHAI GAJJAR SINCE DECD. THROUGH LHR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUTIK A PARIKH, AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,1.1.1,1.1.2,1.1.3,1.2,1.3,1.4,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 29/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. This is wholly a misconceived appeal filed on behalf of the
State, which was the respondent in the original writ petition,
suffered by a delay of 620 days. Though we are not convinced
with the explanation offered to condone the delay, however
entering into the merits of the claim of the State-appellant,
relevant is to note that with respect to the land in question in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/440/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
the ceiling proceedings conducted against the original owner by
order dated 22.8.1978, it was concluded by the competent
authority that there was no excess land with the original owner.
A registered sale deed dated 9.2.1979 was thereafter executed
by the original owner namely Smt. Triveniben Vajeshankar
Raval, to sell the land in question namely plot No.2 Paiki of
Survey No.329 ademasuring 1248 Sq. Mtrs. situated at Rajkot
to Puriben Devjibhai Gajjar. The respondents herein are the
heirs and legal representatives of the purchaser, namely
Puriben Gajjar.
2. It seems that in the year 1984, much after the sale, a
revision was filed on behalf of the State to assail the order dated
22.8.1978, on the premise that the land occupied by the
erstwhile owner was beyond the ceiling limit. The said revision
was, however, allowed vide order dated 9.5.1985 and it was
further taken up in a Writ Petition, namely Special Civil
Application No.3565 of 1984, which was dismissed by this
Court. We may note that admittedly Special Civil Application
No.3565 of 1984 challenging the revisional order dated
9.5.1984 was filed by the erstwhile owner and the purchaser,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/440/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
namely Puriben or her heirs or legal representatives were not
on record. The said writ petition came to be dismissed vide
order dated 8.10.1984.
3. A perusal of the judgment and order dated 8.10.1984
passed in Special Civil Application No.3565 of 1984 filed by the
erstwhile owner namely Triveniben shows that the contention of
the petitioners therein that part of the land had been sold to one
Puriben had not been adverted to. The said contention was
rejected in one line saying that the sale of the part of the land
before passing of the order in revision dated 9.5.1984 has no
concern and as such there was no merit in the same. It was
noted by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order
dated 8.10.1984 that the petitioners therein namely the
erstwhile owner had been granted adequate opportunity of
being heard and hence they cannot be permitted to challenge
the revisional order on the plea of violation of the principles of
natural justice.
4. We find inherent error in the judgment and order dated
8.10.1984 of the learned Single Judge who has simply brushed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/440/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
aside the contention of the petitioners therein of the sale of the
land in question by virtue of the registered sale deed dated
9.2.1979. In our considered opinion, it was a pertinent fact
which ought to have been adverted to, more so when the sale by
registered sale deed dated 9.2.1979 had been made on the
permission granted by the State Government. The learned
Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 8.10.1984 has
committed an error in ignoring the factum of transfer of
ownership in the interregnum, i.e. between two orders namely
22.8.1978 by the competent authority and the revisional order
dated 9.5.1984.
5. It is further sought to be argued by Mr. Krutik Parikh, the
learned Assistant Government Pleader, that another writ
petition of the year 1990 was filed by the erstwhile owner on the
ground that the possession of the land in question had not been
taken and the land be restored and declaration be granted by
issuance of mandamus. The copy of the said petition is not on
record, however, the copy of the order dated 24.4/9.1990
passed in the writ petition namely Special Civil Application
No.6530 of 1990, filed by one Balvantbhai Vajeshankar Raval,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/440/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
son of erstwhile owner Triveniben has been brought on record
to assert the statement was made therein before this Court that
the competent authority had already taken possession of the
surplus land in Plot No.2 Paiki of Survey No.329/384 of Rajkot
city admeasuring 372.31 Sq. Mtrs. The submission, thus, is that
on two occasions, the proceedings initiated by the erstwhile
owner before this Court challenging the revisional order dated
9.5.1984 concluded in favour of the State- appellant. The
contention is that there was no occasion for the learned Single
Judge to deviate from the view taken at earlier point of time
attaching validity to the revisional order dated 9.5.1984. It is
argued that for this reason, in the first round, the Division
Bench of this Court in the instant proceedings had set aside the
order passed by the Writ Court and remitted the matter back for
fresh consideration. The contention is that even on fresh
consideration, the learned Single Judge has erred in relying
upon the observations made by the Writ Court in the previous
round of litigation which were taken note by the Division Bench
in Letters Patent Appeal No.1670 of 2006 allowed on 13.2.2014.
In essence, it was argued that once the possession had been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/440/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
taken by the State Government much prior to the repeal by the
Act No.15 of 1999, there was no occasion for the learned Single
Judge to hold otherwise.
6. Having considered all these submissions made by the
learned Assistant Government Pleader, pertinent is to note that
in all the previous rounds of litigation, the purchaser, i.e.
Puriben or the heirs and legal representatives of Puriben in
whose favour the registered sale deed dated 9.2.1979 was
executed by the erstwhile owner Smt. Triveniben, had not been
impleaded. The earlier proceedings were conducted between
the State and erstwhile owner Smt. Triveniben and her heirs
who had left with no right, title or interest in the land in
question after parting away with their right by way of registered
sale deed dated 9.2.1979. As noted herein-above, there is no
challenge to the execution of the registered sale deed dated
9.2.1979 transferring the right, title and interest in favour of
late Puriben in the land in question. The fact remains that no
notice was given to the actual owner of the land in question at
the stage of revision which was allowed on 9.5.1984 or at any
subsequent stages of the proceedings. The contention of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/440/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
learned Assistant Government Pleader based on the statement
in the judgment and order dated 24.4/9.1990 in the writ petition
filed by the heirs and legal representatives of erstwhile owner
Triveniben, therefore, is of no relevance.
7. Further we may consider the contention of the learned
Assistant Government Pleader that the notice under Section
10(1) and 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act,
1976 being a notice published in the Official Gazette was a
notice to the public at large and that in the said situation, no
exception can be taken to the proceedings of taking possession
of the land in question pursuant to the revisional order dated
9.5.1984.
8. Dealing with the said submission, suffice it to note that the
transfer of the land in question in favour of late Puriben vide
registered sale deed dated 9.2.1979 was with the permission
granted to erstwhile owner Triveniben under Section 26 of the
Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976. In the said scenario, the State
authorities have erred in not impleading the purchaser namely
Puriben in the proceedings drawn in revision much after the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/440/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
purchase. The error occurred at the stage of revision
proceedings initiated by the State Government against the
erstwhile owner. The order dated 9.5.1984 passed by the
Revisional Authority in the subsequent proceedings, relied by
the State appellant, therefore, cannot be pressed against the
actual owner namely Puriben or her heirs or legal
representatives. A person who was not a party to the
proceedings cannot be said to have been divested of the land
which was purchased by him vide registered sale deed after the
permission granted by the State Government under Section 26
of the Act, 1976. The entire proceedings initiated by the State
against the erstwhile owner, therefore, stands vitiated in the eye
of law.
9. For the aforesaid, in addition to the findings returned by
the learned Single Judge, we do not find any error in the
decision of the learned Single Judge in holding that the ceiling
proceedings with respect to the land in question insofar as the
writ petitioners (heirs and legal representatives of deceased
Puriben) (the purchaser vide registered sale deed dated
9.2.1979), must be treated to have been abated.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/440/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
10. With the above, the appeal is DISMISSED both on the
ground of delay as well as on merits. Connected Civil
Applications stand DISPOSED OF, accordingly.
Sd/-
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
OMKAR
