Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – ss.6, 9, 10(1), 10(3), 10(5), 10(6), 11, 20(1)(a), 21, 33 – Appellants/land owners are legal representatives of the original owner of the land in question – Possession of the surplus/excess land was taken over under a Possession Panchanama dated.20.03.1986 – Eventually, Power of Attorney holder of one of the land owner filed writ petition challenging the Panchnama – Partly allowed by Single Judge – Appeal filed by State Government – Meanwhile, the appellants filed an independent writ petition in 2001 for the same relief – Appeal filed by the State Government was allowed by Division Bench – Writ petition filed by the appellants was allowed by Single Judge – Order set aside by Division Bench – On appeal, held: Appellants resorted to all possible pleas – Further, they chose to file the writ petition only in the name of one of the land owner in the capacity of his Power of Attorney holder, little realizing that the authority given by him came to an end after his demise – It was only after the other appellants realised that the decision of the Single Judge was flawed and was justly assailed by State Government on that count, they filed the present writ petition – Appellants thought of the last attempt to assail the Possession Panchnama itself without seeking any further relief of declaration regarding the earlier proceedings which had attained finality – Writ petition filed by the appellants after lapse of 14 years was hopelessly barred by delay and suffered from laches – Impugned order upheld – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
1.1 The appellants have resorted to all possible pleas. First, the application for exemption under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was moved, which was allowed by the competent authority on 6.3.1980, but the appellants chose to withdraw the same. That request was eventually granted by the competent authority on 1.2.1985. The appellants then waited till the notification under Section 10(3) of the 1976 Act was issued on 25.7.1985 and opted for remedy of exemption under Section
21 by filing an application on 22.8.1985. That came to be rejected on 15.12.1986 against which decision a review application was filed only by Devikaben Chandubhai Bhailalbhai (daughter of Chandubhai Bhailalbhai Patel, who in turn was son of Bhailalbhai Parsottambhai Patel- one of the five sons of original owner of the land in question, Parsottambhai Patel. The other four sons were(i) Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel, (ii) Maganbhai Parsottambhai Patel, (iii) Babarbhai Parsottambhai Patel, and (iv) Ramanbhai Parsottambhai Patel) alongwith her three siblings, after lapse of two years. Nevertheless, the same was entertained by the authority concerned and after quashing the entire order in appeal, a remand order came to be passed on 19.9.1998. Even in review proceedings, the fact of State authorities having taken forcible possession of the surplus/excess land on 20.3.1986 vide Possession Panchnama, was reiterated, as can be discerned from the order dated 19.9.1998. It is not clear as to why the appellants did not take clue at least from such unambiguous stand taken by the respondent and forthwith proceed to assail the stated stand of the State (of having taken over forcible possession on 20.3.1986). Besides taking possession, the respondent had determined the compensation for which notice under Section 11 was issued to the appellants on 17.5.1986. It is not the case of the appellants that they were unaware even about that development until 2001. No such plea is taken by the appellants in the writ petition filed in the year 2001. It is only after the competent authority declined to issue No Objection Certificate vide order dated 19.5.1999, they thought of changing the track by taking advantage of the repeal Act having come into force on 30.3.1999. However, they chose to file the writ petition only in the name of Kamleshbhai Parekh in the capacity of Power of Attorney holder of late Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel, being SCA No. 8402/1999, little realizing that the authority given by Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel had come to an end after his demise on 31.12.1985 itself. No doubt the Single Judge was persuaded to quash the entire proceedings which had culminated with taking forcible possession of the surplus/excess land vide Possession Panchnama dated 20.3.1986, being vitiated and/or abated. However, it is only after the other appellants realised that the decision of the Single Judge in SCA No. 8402/1999 was flawed and has been justly assailed by the State Government on that count by way of LPA No. 460/2002, they chose to file the present writ petition (SCA No. 12602/2001). In the said writ petition, however, no disclosure has been made as to why these appellants did not assail the Possession Panchnama dated 20.3.1986 in earlier point of time including when the existence of this document was specifically pleaded by the respondent-State, in particular, in the review application. [Paras 3, 15][1123-C; 1133-F-H; 1134-A-F]
1.2 The earlier part of the writ petition deals with the factual background and assertion that the appellants still continue to be in physical possession of the stated land and was using it for agricultural purpose, as can be noticed from the Revenue record. Indeed, the Revenue record may have presumptive value, but that can be rebutted, which in this case has been done by the respondent-State by relying on the Possession Panchnama and the subsequent proceedings including the application submitted to the Mamlatdar, Baroda City in right earnest for entering the name of the State Government in the Revenue records, dated 11.4.1986, and pursuant to which entries had been effected on 26.9.1989 and 15.2.2000 respectively. Obviously, therefore, the appellants thought of the last attempt to assail the Possession Panchnama dated 20.3.1986 itself without seeking any further relief of declaration regarding the earlier proceedings which had attained finality. The Division Bench therefore, was right in concluding that the writ petition filed by the appellants after lapse of 14 years was hopelessly barred by delay and suffered from laches. The Court is in agreement with the said view taken by the High Court in the peculiar facts of the present case. Further, it is manifest from the acknowledgement produced by the respondent-State that the first notice under Section 10(5) issued to Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel was duly served on 26.12.1985. By the time second notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 23.1.1986, Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel had died (on 31.12.1985). The second notice was also issued to others, namely, Bhikhabhai Maganbhai Patel, son of deceased Maganbhai Parsottambhai Patel, Natvarbhai Bhailalbhai Patel, son of deceased Bhailalbhai Parsottambhai Patel and Jayantibhai Babarbhai Patel, son of deceased Babarbhai Parsottambhai Patel. [Paras 3, 15-18][1135F-H; 1136-A-E] Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar v. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority & Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 718 : [2012]
2 SCR 219; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram (2013)
4 SCC 280 : [2013] 2 SCR 301; Gajanan Kamlya Patil v. Additional Collector and Competent Authority(ULC) & Ors. (2014) 12 SCC 523 : [2014] 1 SCR 1032; Mangalsen v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2014) 15 SCC 332; M/s. Avanti Organisation v. Competent Authority & Additional Collector, Urban Land Ceiling Act, Rajkot & Anr. AIR 1989 Guj 129; Samrathben Manilal Chokshi & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (1994) 35 (1) GLR 203; Savitaben Ramanbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (1999) 40(1) GLR 860; Darothi Clare Parreira (Smt.) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1996) 9 SCC 633 : [1996] 4 Suppl. SCR 46; SouthIndia Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Trivandrum & Anr. AIR 1964 SC
207 : [1964] SCR 280; Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad & Anr. v. P.S. Rao (2000) 2 SCC 451 : [2000] 1 SCR 257; Ramanlal Bhailal Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2008)
5 SCC 449 : [2008] 2 SCR 468; Har Pyari (Smt.) v. IInd Additional Judge, Moradabad & Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 525; State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors. (2015) 5 SCC 321 : [2014] 14 SCR 1451; Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (1998) 4 SCC
387 : [1998] 2 SCR 339; State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Gyanaba Dilavarsinh Jadega (2013) 11 SCC 486; Madhusudan Bhanuprasad Pandya v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2019) SCC Online SC 1050; Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat & Ors. (1976) 1 SCC 700; Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust v. State of Punjab (1996) 4 SCC 212; Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswam (Dead) by Lrs. (1996) 8 SCC 259 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.