Quashed

Late Punabhai Dhulabhai Parmar through His Legal Heir v. the State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC10 Jun 2022SCA/11334/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat, Ahemdabad quashed the State Government's order rejecting a land regrant application due to violation of natural justice. The order was passed without hearing the petitioner, despite favorable recommendations from revenue authorities. The matter is remanded for fresh decision after hearing.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 4.3.2021 was quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Secretary concern to decide the application after hearing the petitioner, with a decision to be communicated within tw

Late Punabhai Dhulabhai Parmar through His Legal Heir Vs… — Land Acquisition | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

C/SCA/11334/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11334 of 2021

¶4

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

¶5

LATE PUNABHAI DHULABHAI PARMAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR

¶6

Versus

¶7

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

BHOOMI M THAKORE(6237) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2 MR. HARSH K THAKAR(7172) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 MR J. K. SHAH, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN Date : 10/06/2022 ORAL ORDER

¶13

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the State Government in its revenue department which, in turn, was communicated by the Collector to the petitioner on 22.03.2021.

¶14

The facts, in detail, are not necessitated. Relevant for the present purpose, are that the land bearing survey no.1236/1+2+3 admeasuring A-1 34-gunthas was given block no.506. Somewhere in the year 1984, the Deputy Collector, passed an order dated 18.10.1984 granting the land in favour of the father of the petitioners on permanent basis. As per one of the conditions, the allottee was to pay the occupancy price, within a period of two months from the date of the allotment; however, he could not do so which, resulted into vesting of the land in the State Government. Entry no.2789 dated 16.11.1987 was posted in the revenue record whereby, as aforesaid, the land was vested in the State Government. According to the petitioners, no steps were taken thereafter and the petitioners are in occupation/possession of the land and are carrying out the agricultural activities.

¶15

2.1 Somewhere in the year 2016, the petitioners applied for regrant of land by accepting the occupancy price. Panchnama was

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

C/SCA/11334/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2022

¶18

drawn, followed by opinions of the Mamlatdar dated 16.7.2020; Deputy Collector dated 31.7.2020 so also the Collector dated 5.1.2021. The common thread running through all the opinions is that the father of the petitioner, was required to pay an amount of Rs.13,875/- towards the occupancy price, but failed to do so and since it was found that there is a breach of condition, that the land was vested in the State Government. As per the opinion, as per the provisions of Government Resolution dated 8.1.1980, if there is an encroachment, the same can be regularized by imposing 15 times assessment. The Mamlatdar, opined that the land can be regularized on the new tenure basis by accepting the premium. Similar such course, was recommended by the Deputy Collector and Collector. The matter was forwarded to the State Government which led to passing of the order dated 4.3.2021. Hence, the present petition.

¶19

Ms Bhoomi Thakore, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, at the outset, submitted that the land, though was vested in the State Government in the year 1987, there is a policy of the State Government which permits the regrant of the land in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners are ready to pay the occupancy price which may be determined by the Collector. It is also submitted that bare perusal of the opinions of the Mamlatdar dated 16.7.2020; Deputy Collector dated 31.7.2020 so also the Collector dated 5.1.2021, it suggest that they recommend grant of land, accepting 15 times assessment of the occupancy price. It is therefore submitted that when there is favourable opinion of the revenue authorities, there was no reason available to the State Government, to have rejected the proposal. It is submitted that furthermore, it has been observed in the order that if the land is allotted or regularized, it is likely that the petitioners would be acquiring the status of an agriculturist. The department is also of the opinion that regularization may not be accepted otherwise, it may encourage the encroachment. On this ground, the application

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

C/SCA/11334/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2022

¶22

of the petitioners has been rejected. It is submitted that such order passed by the revenue department, is not only against the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 8.1.1980 but also in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶23

3.1 It is submitted that the order was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioners; which, in turn, was communicated by the District Collector vide communication dated 22.3.2021. Both the order and letters, read in juxta position, would suggest that the petitioners, have not been given any opportunity and straightaway, the order has been passed.

¶24

This Court, inquired form Mr J. K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader to find out as to whether any opportunity was afforded to the petitioners, it has been fairly conceded that the petitioners, were not heard. The order, therefore, has been passed without hearing the petitioners and in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, on this limited ground, the order dated 4.3.2021 deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The matter, is remanded to the Secretary concern who, shall decide the application of the petitioners for regrant of the land, keeping in mind the applicable policies. The Secretary, shall take a decision after hearing the petitioners, with an advance intimation to them. Decision, if any, shall be communicated to the petitioners within a period of two weeks’ thereafter.

¶25

Till the decision is taken, the parties shall maintain the status quo.

¶26

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.

¶27

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)

¶28

RAVI P. PATEL

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Late Punabhai Dhulabhai Parmar through His Legal Heir v. the State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Late Punabhai Dhulabhai Parmar through His Legal Heir v. the State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prafulbhai Maganbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Raliyatben Popatbhai Thummar Vs State of Gujarat

Rameshbhai Talshibhai Patel through Poa Holder Mohammad Ismail Mohammad Hanif Shaikh Vs State of Gujarat

Bhikhabhai Amarshibhai Vs State of Gujarat

Padmakant Dolatrai Desai Vs State of Gujarat

Shreyansh Govindbhai Dholakia Vs State of Gujarat