Quashed

Lalitkumar Natubhai Patel v. Collector Surat

Gujarat HC15 Feb 2021SCA/4188/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders reclaiming allotted land, citing violation of natural justice due to vague notice and delayed action. The Court quashed orders, noting petitioner's readiness to pay premium, allowing restitution while directing authorities to determine future breaches.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders by Collector and Revisional Authority quashed; petitioner to pay premium as determined by authorities.

Lalitkumar Natubhai Patel Vs Collector Surat — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

C/SCA/4188/2004 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4188 of 2004

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

¶6

====================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	==== NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	NO

¶7

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

¶8

LALITKUMAR NATUBHAI PATEL

¶9

Versus

¶10

COLLECTOR SURAT & 1 other(s)

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance:

¶13

MR RR MARSHALL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MARSHALL & ASSOCIATES(5936) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. RAJU N DESAI(7029) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

¶14

MR DM DEVNANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

¶17

Date : 15/02/2021

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 25.12.2003 passed

¶20

Page 1 of 13

¶21

C/SCA/4188/2004 JUDGMENT

¶22

by the learned Collector, Surat, as also the order dated 1.03.2004 passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. respondent No.2.

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner is that by way of an order dated 22.01.1973 the land bearing Survey No. 166-A ad-measuring 16 gunthas and 64 sq.yds situated in Village Olpad, Taluka Olpad, District Surat, came to be alloted by the learned Collector on payment of price being fixed at Rs.3,000/- at the relevant point of time on certain terms and conditions. According to the petitioner, the land was being utilised by the petitioner throughout, however, on account of the land being kharaba, the same was in a depressed and uneven condition and approximately more than Rs.1.00 lakh in those days were spent by the petitioner for levelling the same so that the use can be made. According to the petitioner, the Agro Service Centre was started after putting up construction and was carrying out the repairs of tractors, supply of oil engines, sale of spare parts, manure and other agro products like pvc pipes and pesticides etc. This activities remained

¶24

Page 2 of 13

¶25

C/SCA/4188/2004 JUDGMENT

¶26

uninterrupted right upto the year 1990, and it is only on account of one Chhaganbhai Punjabhai Patel, who made an application before the Collector, though was not concerned either with the petitioner or the land in question, and at his instance, an absolute vague notice came to be issued on 2/15-6/7-1999 after an unreasonable period. The said show-cause-notice was resisted by the petitioner but ultimately on 25.11.2003 an order came to be passed in exercise of the powers under Section 68 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (for short “BLR Code”) directing the land along with the structures would be taken back in the name of the State Authority without any compensation.

¶27

The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has preferred a revision application before the respondent No.2 authority, which was registered as Revision Application No.1 of 2004. However, according to the petitioner, without granting any opportunity of hearing, the authority was pleased to dismiss the revision application vide order dated 19.3.2004 by upholding the

¶28

Page 3 of 13

¶29

C/SCA/4188/2004 JUDGMENT

¶30

order passed by the Collector and it is against this order passed by the Revisional Authority as well as the order passed by the Collector, present petition is brought before the Court. Initially, by way of an order dated 6.4.2004, Rule was issued and vide ad-interim relief in terms of para 14(b), the protection was granted to the petitioner, which continued throughout and with this background, the present petition has come up for consideration before this Court.

¶31

Mr. R.R. Marshall, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Marshall & Associates for the petitioner has vehemently contented that the order passed by the authority is ex-facie in gross violation of principles of natural justice and on this ground alone the impugned order passed by the revisional authority requires to be quashed and set aside. It has been further submitted that the revisional authority has exercised the powers after gross unreasonable delayed period since the original land is of the year 1973 and the notice which has been issued in the year 1999 and thereto the same is absolutely in a vague form, and as such, on the basis of the said notice,

¶32

Page 4 of 13

¶33

C/SCA/4188/2004 JUDGMENT

¶34

no proceedings could have been undertaken.

¶35

4.1 Mr. R.R.Marshall, learned Senior Counsel for the

¶36

petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has not been given an effective opportunity to represent the case as no exact alleged breach of conditions have been spelt out in the notice itself and thereafter the order proceeded as if there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice and this tentamount to be violation of fair opportunity to the petitioner since the petitioner is deprived of making an effective representation in absence of any specific alleged breach having been pointed out. Mr. Marshall, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after taking the Court through the findings of the revisional authority in which it has been mentioned that some 9 shops have been constructed and the land has been allowed to be used for different purpose but then it is submitted on instructions that no such shops have been constructed over the land in question. Apart from that the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Marshall has further submitted that the orders passed by the revisional

¶37

Page 5 of 13

¶38

C/SCA/4188/2004 JUDGMENT

¶39

authority have also been passed in an irregular form inasmuch as, the original allotment is of the year 1993 which is sought to be disturbed in the year 1999 and the notice which is referred to on page 15 is also not clearly pointing out the breach being committed by the petitioner. By referring to the sequence of events, it has been submitted that normally the revisional authority is taking too much time in disposing of the petition which fact is a ground reality, but, in the present case, the revisional authority has disposed of the revision petition within a short span in a pre-decided manner and that too on the basis of wrong premise.

¶40

4.2 Mr. R.R.Marshall, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that apart from all these circumstances even the authority on page 23 of the compilation informed the petitioner to pay 100% premium vide communication dated 4/8-9/2000 for alleged breach within a period of 7 days, and as such, the authority was inclined to condone such breach in the year way back in 2000, and in response to that intimation, there was specific letter written by the

¶41

Page 6 of 13

¶42

C/SCA/4188/2004 JUDGMENT

¶43

petitioner on 21.09.2000 reflecting on page 25 that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the amount of premium which may be determined by the authority. So, according to learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.R. Marshall, even the despite alleged breach against the petitioner, the authorities were ready and willing to condone the same by allowing the petitioner to pay the premium vide their communication way back in 2000 and this circumstance have not been in a right spirit taken by the authority below who passed the order.

¶44

4.3 In addition to this, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Marshall on specific instructions from the petitioner has shown readiness and willingness to pay the premium even as on date which may be determined by the authority and for that purpose the petitioner is ready to undertake to that effect, and as such, the request is made to grant the relief as prayed for in the petition.

¶45

4.4 Additionally learned Senior Counsel Mr. Marshall has submitted that even in an identical situation like this the

¶46

Page 7 of 13

¶47

C/SCA/4188/2004 JUDGMENT

¶48

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order not only in one case but almost similar to other cases. A reference is made to the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 4219 of 2004 and has submitted that the case of the petitioner also deserves to be allowed in the line which the Co-ordinate Bench has granted the relief. In furtherance of this, a further decision was also brought to the notice of this Court which is dated 17.01.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11230 of 2006 wherein also the petition came to be allowed on account of malafides as well as violation of principles of natural justice, and then, has pointed out the para 10 of the said decision for which the learned Senior Counsel has no objection if present petition is also disposed of on the same line as mentioned in para 10.

¶49

As against this, learned AGP Mr. D.M. Devnani appearing on behalf of the State-authority has vehemently contended that this is a gross case in which there is a deliberate violation of condition of grant which aspect has been properly considered by the authorities below. By

¶50

Page 8 of 13

¶51

C/SCA/4188/2004 JUDGMENT

¶52

referring to the findings arrived by the revisional authority reflecting at page 18 that the land in question is passed on to one Sureshkumar Hiralal Jain for the purpose of selling the cement and some part of the land has been sold away to another person, and therefore, there is a clear breach recorded by the Collector in his order which is also impugned in this petition, and as such, when the facts are evidently brought on record, there is hardly any justification in challenge to the order passed by the authority. Apart from that, learned AGP Mr. Devnani has contended that the cases which have been relied upon by Mr. R.R. Marshall, learned Senior Counsel decided by Coordinate Bench of this Cort wherein the facts are altogether different and therefore the same principles cannot be applied here in the present case when there is a clear breach committed with deliberate intent. Hence the challenge made in the petition is meritless.

¶53

5.1 Mr. Devnani, learned AGP has further submitted that there is violation of principles of natural justice if agitated by the petitioner stoutly then at the best the matter can

¶54

Page 9 of 13

¶55

C/SCA/4188/2004 JUDGMENT

¶56

be remanded back for reconsideration by the revisional authority and hence requested this Court not to entertain the petition.

¶57

In rejoinder to this submission, leaned Senior Counsel Mr. Marshall has submitted that this petition is of the year 2004 and the original grant is of the year 1973 and over the period of time throughout the possession has remained as it is and as such remanding the matter after these longer years would not be in the interest of either side in view of the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the premium whatever being determined by the authority as on date, and therefore, instead of remanding the matter back to the authority below since the petitioner was also originally informed to pay the premium for even alleged breach without much going into this aspect, appropriate orders be passed on the similar line on which the Co-ordinate Bench has disposed of almost similar case of breach of the recent time for which the learned Senior Counsel has no objection.

¶58

The learned AGP Mr. Devnani has left it to the

¶59

Page 10 of 13

¶60

C/SCA/4188/2004 JUDGMENT

¶61

discretion of this Court since the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the premium as on date to be determined by the authority and as such requested to pass an oder in the similar line on which the decision dated 17.01.2020 is taken in SCA No. 11230 of 2006.

¶62

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the record placed before the Court, it prima facie appears that the original allotment of the land is of the year 1973 and for the first time in the year 1999 the show-cause-notice came to be issued in which also when the breach is committed, what kind of breach is committed and without mentioning any specific details in the notice a vague notice appears to have been given after unreasonable period. In addition to this the authorities who passed an order have also not properly taken note of their own communication in which in September 2000 the Collector, Surat, intimated the petitioner to pay 100% premium for alleged breach of allotment of the land in question and asked the consent within a period of 7 days, and according to the petitioner,

¶63

Page 11 of 13

¶64

C/SCA/4188/2004 JUDGMENT

¶65

the consent in written form have also been given by petitioner but no action was taken for a pretty long period. In addition to this it appears to this Court that the orders which have been passed by revisional authority is in gross violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore, on that count alone the order passed by the revisional authority is not sustainable. Be that as it may, now since in view of the broad consensus without much going into the details since the petitioner has undertaken through the learned Senior Counsel to pay the premium as on date which may be determined for such alleged breach without examining further, the impugned orders in view of the aforesaid discussions are quashed and set aside.

¶66

However, it will be open for the respondentauthorities to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in case of any further violation of any of the condition of allotment which may be noticed by them. It is further made clear that the respondent-authorities are required to determine the premium as on date payable by the petitioner with respect to the aforesaid alleged breach and in view of the concession which has been given by

¶67

Page 12 of 13

¶68

C/SCA/4188/2004 JUDGMENT

¶69

the learned Senior Counsel on specific instructions by the petitioner, the same shall be paid at the earliest in a time schedule which may be determined by the authority itself.

¶70

With these observations and direction, petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.

¶71

Sd/- (ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)

¶72

A.M.A. SAIYED

¶73

Page 13 of 13

Lalitkumar Natubhai Patel v. Collector Surat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalitkumar Natubhai Patel v. Collector Surat

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

Ramanlal Davalbhai Patel Vs Amc

Rameshchandra Davalbhai Patel Vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. Thr' Municipal Corporation

Rashtriya Labour Union, through Its, President Shri S.B.Chaudhary Vs State of Gujarat

Bai Jambuben Wd/O Khandubhai Manchhabhai Garasia Vs State of Gujarat

Manekben D/O Ramabhai Dhanji Bhai Vs State of Gujarat

Manojbhai Dahyabhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat