Partly allowed

Ghanshyamgiri Kantigiri v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC13 Aug 2018SCA/9000/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of orders forfeiting land due to alleged breach of regularization conditions regarding price payment. Court directed Collector to consider petitioners' undertaking to pay 2.5 times market value and seek no objection from National Highway Authority before passing appropriate regularization orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Collected directed to consider undertakings, call for NOC from National Highway Authority, and pass appropriate regularization orders within six weeks.

Ghanshyamgiri Kantigiri Vs State of Gujarat — Land Acquisition | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/SCA/8990/2013 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8990 of 2013

¶4

With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11163 of 2013 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11671 of 2013 With

¶5

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8982 of 2013 With

¶6

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8989 of 2013 With

¶7

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8991 of 2013 With

¶8

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8992 of 2013 With

¶9

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8993 of 2013 With

¶10

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8994 of 2013 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8995 of 2013 With

¶11

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8996 of 2013 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8997 of 2013 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8998 of 2013 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8999 of 2013 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9000 of 2013 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9666 of 2013

¶12

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶13

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

¶14

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

¶15

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to NO

¶16

see the judgment ?

¶17

Page 1 of 9

¶18

C/SCA/8990/2013 JUDGMENT

¶19

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO

¶20

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO

¶21

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any NO

¶22

order made thereunder ?

¶23

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

¶24

YASHVANTGIRI NARENDRAGIRI GOSAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶25

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

¶26

Appearance: MR PS CHAMPANERI(214) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED(4) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 MR. RAKESH PATEL, AGP for the RESPONDENT No. 1

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

¶29

Date : 13/08/2018

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

Since the issues raised in all the captioned petitions are same, those

¶32

were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and Order.

¶33

The petitioners pray to quash and set aside the Order dated 16.04.2013 passed by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) Ahmebadad rejecting the Revision Application of each of the petitioners and affirming the order dated 07.12.2011 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar whereby, for the breach of the condition nos. 3 and 11 of the order dated 18.05.2000 ordered to forfeit the land in

¶34

Page 2 of 9

¶35

C/SCA/8990/2013 JUDGMENT

¶36

question without compensation.

¶37

The facts giving rise to the present petition in brief are as under:-

¶38

3.1 The Collector, Surendranagar having regard to the plea of the petitioners for regularization of their occupancy over the land submitted a proposal to the State Government vide communication bearing no. LND/1/V.2134/99, dated 22.07.1999, LND/1/V.1842 to 1859 dated 22.07.1999, and letter bearing No. LND/1/V.154/2000 dated 17.1.2000 describing the area of land occupied by each of the petitioners in the column no. 3, of the Revenue Survey No. 46/1 paiki of the Village:Paliyad of Chotila Taluka together with the map showing the portion of the land. Indisputably the lands were encroached upon by each of the petitioners for commercial purpose without fail.

¶39

3.2 Appropos the proposal of the Collector, the Government determined the price of the land at Rs. 112/- per Sq. Mt. and as such shown in column no. 6 of the proposal two and a half time more of the said price were proposed rate be paid together and may be determined by the District Price and Valuation Committee out of which whatever may be higher will have to be paid by each of the petitioner then only the occupancy

¶40

Page 3 of 9

¶41

C/SCA/8990/2013 JUDGMENT

¶42

can be considered for regularization and accordingly the petitioners of each petition agreed to be abide by the same.

¶43

3.3 The Government in its Land Revenue Department accordingly passed the resolution dated 30.03.2000 bearing No. DBN/1298/1693/L declaring that as of the date of order the District Price Valuation Committee to determine the value and the concerned persons should deposit the determined price within thirty days from the dated of communication and upon payment of occupancy price, penal price and other fees, the Collector shall pass the formal order and the copy thereof to be forwarded to the Government.

¶44

As per the Government Resolution No.

¶45

LND/3984/1615/A/dated 27.03.1984 and the resolution No. LND/3981/5028/A dated 24.08.1981 providing for completion of entrustment of legal possession and issuance of the Sanad thereof to the respective persons and completion of such formalities to be informed to the government. The said order came to be in concurrence with the Financial Department dated 08.02.2000. The said order of the Government dated 30.06.2000 together with the petitioner of name of the respective encroacher, the exact area are encroached upon by each of the petitioner, the

¶46

Page 4 of 9

¶47

C/SCA/8990/2013 JUDGMENT

¶48

determination of the price per Sq. Mt., one time price, and 2 ½ price so determine in the tabular form annexed to the said order dated 30.03.2000. The said order is annexed as Annexure-A to the petition.

¶49

3.4 In view of the aforesaid, the Collector, Surendranagar issued the order of grant of the land shown in the aforesaid order on terms and conditions together with the descriptions of boundaries of land occupied by each of the petitioner. The said order of the Collector, Surendranagar is produced at Annexure-B to the petition. Accordingly as per the Government Resolution dated 27.03.1984 bearing no. LND/398/1615/A as well as, as per the Government Resolution No. LND/3981/5028/A dated 24.04.1981 the Collector, Surendanagar directed the Mamlatdar to handover legal possession and to get kabuliat in the prescribed form within one month and to issue sanad of the same to the petitioner and the copy thereof be forwarded to the office of the Collector and to the Government.

¶50

3.5 The petitioner deposited the said amount in Government Treasury by challan and copy there of was produced along with application dated 15.04.2000 to the Collector, Surendranagar.

¶51

Page 5 of 9

¶52

C/SCA/8990/2013 JUDGMENT

¶53

3.6 It is stated that accordingly the aforesaid order dated 18.05.2000 Annexure-B was passed by the Collector, Surendranagar.

¶54

3.7 On 01.02.2010 the Collector, Surendranagar issued letter, to the petitioner that as per the communication of the office of the Collector dated 30.06.2001, the price difference payable by the petitioner as per the District Price Valuation Committee was informed to be paid and that the challan of payment of such amount is not produced and therefore there is a reason to believe that you have not deposited the said amount, you are therefore, informed that if you have deposited the amount, the proof of such deposit may be produced within fifteen days, failing which, the appropriate procedure will be undertaken.

¶55

3.8 It is the case of the petitioners that they had not received the aforesaid communication dated 30.06.2001 and therefore, the amount as have been referred in the communication dated 01.02.2010 is deposited under challan to the treasury, and the said challan was produced along with the application.

¶56

Page 6 of 9

¶57

C/SCA/8990/2013 JUDGMENT

¶58

3.9 On 07.12.2011 the Collector, Surendranagar passed an impugned order of forfeiture of the land granted to the petitioner, for the breach of the condition nos. 3 and 11 of the regularization order dated 18.05.2000, Annexure-E.

¶59

3.10 The petitioner filed the Revision Application under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in the facts and on the grounds mentioned in the memo of the revision, Annexure-F. The said revision came to be rejected by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeal) by the order dated 16.04.2013 and confirmed by an order dated 07.12.2011 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar. The said impugned order is produced at Annexure-G to the petition.

¶60

On 09.12.2013 the following order came to be passed:-

¶61

“Learned advocate for the petitioners places on record the undertakings dated 07.12.2013 filed by the petitioners in each of the petitions, which are ordered to be taken on record. Copy of undertakings are also furnished to learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State authorities.

¶62

From paras 2 and 3 of the undertakings, prima facie, it appears that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the price. The petitioners are directed to submit copy of undertakings to the District Collector along with copy of this order and the District Collector to take decision within a reasonable period.

¶63

Page 7 of 9

¶64

C/SCA/8990/2013 JUDGMENT

¶65

Stand over to 26th December, 2013.

¶66

Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue till then.

¶67

Direct service is permitted.”

¶68

The ad-interim relief granted earlier continues as on date. All the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the price of the land to the extent of two and a half (2 ½) times the market value. All the petitioners have filed an undertaking to this effect. One copy of the undertaking in each of the matter has been furnished to the Collector concerned. It is now for the Collector to take the final call and pass appropriate orders as regards the regularization of the possession.

¶69

At this stage, Mr. Patel the learned AGP pointed out that the National Highway Authority may in future need the land in question for expansion of the Highway and for any other public purpose. Mr. Champaneri submitted that the Highway is almost at a distance of about 500 meters from the subject land.

¶70

Be that as it may, before passing appropriate orders, the Collector shall call for the no objection of the National Highway Authority in this regard including the Road and Building Department, State of Gujarat.

¶71

The Collector is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance

¶72

Page 8 of 9

¶73

C/SCA/8990/2013 JUDGMENT

¶74

with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this

¶75

order. All the petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶76

Once an order is passed by the Collector regularizing the possession of the petitioners on payment of the price that may be fixed, the Authority concerned shall issue sanad thereof to the respective petitioners.

¶77

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J)

¶78

Bhoomi

¶79

Page 9 of 9

Ghanshyamgiri Kantigiri v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyamgiri Kantigiri 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

Dipakkumar Omprakash Gupta Vs the State of Gujarat

Rajnibhai Khodabhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Yunush @ Bholo Sorabkhan Amjikhan Pathan Vs State of Gujarat

Shitalben Wd/O Pankajgiri Bhavangiri Vs State of Gujarat

Hiteshgiri Bhagvangiri Vs State of Gujarat

Maheshgiri Bhabhutgiri Vs State of Gujarat