Dismissed

Pragneshkumar Babulal Patel v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC29 Nov 2018LPA/42/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the Letters Patent Appeal and dismissed the Civil Application. The court held that transactions involving the sale of Bhoodan land granted for personal cultivation of landless labourers were per se illegal, and the State remained the owner of the land, negating the title of subsequent purchasers.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal was rejected and the Civil Application was dismissed. No title was recognized in favour of the appellant.

Pragneshkumar Babulal Patel Vs State of Gujarat — Land Acquisition | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/LPA/42/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 42 of 2018

¶4

In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17238 of 2017

¶5

With

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2018

¶7

========================================================== PRAGNESHKUMAR BABULAL PATEL

¶8

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶9

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

¶10

Appearance: MR SIDDHARTH H DAVE(5306) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

¶13

Date : 29/11/2018

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE)

¶16

Request of the appellant in this appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is to perpetuate illegality committed by the authority in view of the fact that parcel of land bearing survey nos. 460 and 460 paiki 1 admeasuring about 2600 sq. mtrs situated at village Nani Kadi, Taluka Kadi admittedly was originally allotted as 'Bhoodan' land in favour of one Senma Chhaganbhai Chundabhai. Further it is not in dispute that such allotment was for a specific purpose and on condition that the above allottee shall cultivate the land personally and earn his livelihood out of the same. Inspite of the above, contrary to the terms and conditions of allotment, on 30.5.2000 by registered sale deed, the original allottee Senma Chhaganbhai Chundabhai transferred the land in favour of one Pujiben Hirabhai and she in

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

C/LPA/42/2018 ORDER

¶19

turn transferred the land in favour of the present appellant by registered sale deed dated 14.7.2010.

¶20

About the nature of transfer, it is apparent that the transactions entered into by all the above persons are per-se illegal.

¶21

In the above context, learned Single Judge upon challenge to the order passed by SSRD, recorded certain findings and observations which reads as under :

¶22

“In my view, no case is made out for interference in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The State Government allots land with a particular object. The object is to provide land to the landless labourers so that they can earn their livelihood. The original allottee was not supposed to sell the land and derive profit out of it. The very transfer of the land is illegal. No right, title or interest could be said to have been conferred in favour of the applicant herein so as to maintain this petition. In the cases of the present nature, the plea of the applicant of he being a bonafide purchaser of the property for value without notice is not tenable in law. Indisputably, the Government is the owner of the land. The applicant herein may initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against the persons from whom he purchased the land for getting back the sale consideration.”

¶23

In the context as above, submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that he is a bona fide purchaser and upon imposing conditions, certain earlier orders were passed merit no consideration. Besides the exercise of power by learned Single Judge purportedly under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and even if it is considered under Article 226, the object of 'Bhoodan' was to provide the land to the landless labourers so

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

C/LPA/42/2018 ORDER

¶26

they can earn their livelihood. The original allottee was not supposed to sell the land and derive profit out of it. No right, title or interest could be said to have been conferred in favour of Pujiben Hirabhai or the present appellant. Therefore, the Government is the owner of the land once such land is transferred illegally. Even if the subject land is transferred to an agriculturist for agricultural purpose, such transfer would be illegal.

¶27

We find no substance in the Letters Patent Appeal and same is hereby rejected. Civil Application also stands dismissed.

¶28

(ANANT S. DAVE, ACJ)

¶29

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)

¶30

RAGHUNATH R NAIR

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Pragneshkumar Babulal Patel v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pragneshkumar Babulal Patel 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

Airports Authority of India Vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs Bhagwanbhai Khojabhai Parmar

Nareshkumar Mahendrabhai Parmar Vs Municipal Commissioner

State of Gujarat Vs Swapnashrushti Horizon Pvt. Ltd. Formerly M/S Sheth Brothers Realty Pvt. Ltd.

State of Gujarat Vs Mrugee Traders and Develpers

Leelaben Maheshbhai Senva Vs State of Gujarat