Allowed

Patel Ramjibhai Madhabhai v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC4 Jul 2014SCA/2956/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed special civil applications seeking regularization of land purchase. The petitioners paid the determined price and premium after the matter was remanded. The court directed the Collector to decide the price within six weeks, keeping the earlier remand order in mind, and made the rule absolute.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; Rule made absolute; Collector directed to decide price within six weeks.

Patel Ramjibhai Madhabhai Vs State of Gujarat — Land Acquisition | Gujarat HC (2014)

¶1

C/SCA/2956/2010 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2956 of 2010 With

¶4

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2958 of 2010

¶5

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶6

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA

¶7

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

¶8

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶9

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶10

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

¶11

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶12

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

¶13

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

¶14

PATEL RAMJIBHAI MADHABHAI....Petitioner(s)

¶15

Versus

¶16

STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)

¶17

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

¶18

Appearance:

¶19

MR KB PUJARA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. UDIT MEHTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶20

RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 4

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA

¶23

Date : 04/07/2014

¶24

Page 1 of 4

¶25

C/SCA/2956/2010 JUDGMENT

¶26

COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

Both the present petitions have been filed by the petitioners for regularizing the purchase of the land on payment of price as the price as determined @ Rs.15/- has been a subject matter of litigation. The order passed at Annexure-B in Special Civil Application No. 2956 of 2010 referred to this aspect that the Collector vide his order dated 1.5.2000 (Annexure-B) has determined the price @ Rs.15/- and called upon the petitioners to pay along with the premium @ 2½ times amounting to Rs.12,14,063/-. Similarly in Special Civil Application No. 2958 of 2010 it is Rs.25,72,313/-. As the price according to the petitioners was unrealistic and excessive the appeal was preferred before the Secretary (Appeals) and and Secretary (Appeals) vide order dated 2.9.2006 remanded the matter back to the Collector setting aside his earlier order and directed to decide the price afresh after hearing the petitioners. However as it appears the impugned order came to be passed at Annexure-H by which instead of regularizing and fixing the price the Collector has refused to regularize and directed to take over the possession which has lead to these petitions.

¶28

At the time of hearing of these petitions initially the High Court (Coram:D.H.Waghela,J) has passed the order dated 8.3.2010 as under:

¶29

“RULE returnable on 09.04.2010 . Learned AGP waives service for respondent no.1. Direct service for the rest. Ad interim relief in

¶30

Page 2 of 4

¶31

C/SCA/2956/2010 JUDGMENT

¶32

terms of para 15 (c) on condition of depositing by the returnable date the sum of Rs. 12,14,063/- with the Collector of Kutch at Bhuj. It was stated at the bar and clarified that, in case, the ex-parte ad interim relief granted by this order has to be continued for any reason whatsoever, additional amount, by way of interest from the date of 01.05.2000, shall be payable as a further condition for continuing the ad interim relief.”

¶33

Therefore in view of this the only thing which is required to be considered is that only the price was to be fixed as it was regularized subject to the payment. Thus even the Government had regularized and the taking over possession back on any count does not arise. In spite of that when the impugned order came to be passed by the Collector when the matter was remanded the petitioners had to file the aforesaid petitions. Therefore the interest of justice would be served if the Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the price in accordance with law considering the past background and the fact that he has to decide the price as if he is deciding on the date of regularization initially as per the order of the State Government dated 6.3.1999. The Collector shall decide the same keeping in mind the aforesaid aspects of the order of the High Court within a period of 6 weeks.

¶34

It is required to be mentioned that as per the order of the High Court dated 8.3.2010 the petitioners have deposited the entire amount for which the receipts are produced with the Additional Affidavit filed by the petitioners. It is only a matter of determination of the price in background of the facts and as per

¶35

Page 3 of 4

¶36

C/SCA/2956/2010 JUDGMENT

¶37

the limit of Rs.15/- prescribed in the order of the Secretary (Appeals) dated 2.9.2006 at Annexure-C. The said decision shall be taken as stated above not later than 6 weeks from today. The present petitions stands allowed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.

¶38

(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.)

¶39

JNW

¶40

Page 4 of 4

Patel Ramjibhai Madhabhai v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patel Ramjibhai Madhabhai v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indraprastha Tower Cooperative Housing Sty Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat

Doshi Enterprises Vs State of Gujarat

Bhulabhai Govindbhai Thro' Poasanmukhbhai Dahyabhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Patel Sureshkumar Savjibhai Vs State of Gujarat

Bayer Cropscience Limited Vs Union of India

Basf India Limited Vs Union of India