GOPALBHAI PANCHABHAI ZALAVADIA (DEAD) THR LRs VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS

GOPALBHAI PANCHABHAI ZALAVADIA (DEAD) THR LRs  VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2022

(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 27652 of 2015)

GOPALBHAI PANCHABHAI

ZALAVADIA (DEAD) THR LRs ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Ajay Rastogi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat dated 24th

March, 2015 primarily holding that since the Government took

possession of the subject land in question in the presence of Panchas

after going through the procedure prescribed under Section 10(1),

10(3) and 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976

(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act 1976”) that disentitles the

appellants of seeking any legitimate grievance and there appears no

reason of permitting mutation of the subject land in their favour.

2

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the predecessors of the

appellants were in possession of the agricultural land. In 1976, the

predecessor of the appellants had filled a form under the Act, 1976

disclosing that the lands are agricultural lands and, therefore, cannot

be termed as ‘vacant land’ under the Act 1976. However, the

prescribed authority (Deputy Collector), after affording opportunity of

hearing and holding enquiry in furtherance thereof, under its order

dated 6th May, 1987 recorded a finding that 21,615 sq. meters of land

was ‘surplus’ in the hands of the appellants and after holding further

inquiry under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act 1976, the

State Government took possession of the subject land on 24th

November, 1987 in the presence of Panchas and in furtherance

thereof, the competent authority passed an order dated 29th

February, 1988 of making payment of compensation after

ascertaining the price under Section 11 of the Act 1976.

4. The order passed by prescribed authority was the subject

matter of challenge at the instance of the appellants before the Land

Tribunal and that came to be dismissed by an Order dated 30th May,

1988 and the finding of fact was affirmed about the procedure being

3

followed by the State Government while taking possession of the

subject land in question and also with respect to the compensation

paid by the competent authority after ascertaining the price under

Section 11 of the Act, 1976 and indisputedly, no further proceedings

were initiated by the appellants against the order of the Land

Tribunal dated 30th May, 1988 and that has attained finality.

5. What reveals from the record is that after five years down the

line, the other alleged co-parceners filed their appeal(Appeal No.

Rajkot-3/1992) before the Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad which

was not maintainable, still while disposing of the appeal at the

instance of other co-parceners, the Land Tribunal, under its Order

dated 21st September, 1992 while remitting it to the prescribed

authority made it clear that Appeal No. Rajkot-18/88 preferred by

the present appellants and decided by the Land Tribunal has nothing

to do with Appeal No. Rajkot-3/1992 preferred by the other coparceners.

6. It is informed to this Court that so far as the order which was

later passed by the Tribunal dated 21st September, 1992 in Appeal

No. Rajkot-3/1992 preferred at the instance of the other co-

4

parceners remitting the matter back to the prescribed authority is

concerned, either party has not been able to inform this Court as to

what steps were later taken by the prescribed authority and the fact

is that the proceedings stood closed because of the Act stood later

repealed. Be that as it may, that may not have a material bearing on

the present matter for the reason that even while remitting the matter

to the prescribed authority by the Land Tribunal under its Order

dated 21st September 1992, the finding recorded by the Land

Tribunal in its earlier order dated 30th May, 1988 passed in Appeal

no. Rajkot-18/88 filed at the instance of the appellants has not been

questioned in reference to the land vested with the State Government

on 24th November 1987, in consequence thereof, mutations were also

opened in favour of the Government.

7. The appellants approached the High Court by filing of the writ

petition with a grievance that mutation which was opened in the

name of the Government, after passing of the order of remand by the

Tribunal in Appeal No. Rajkot-3/1992 nullify the earlier order of the

Tribunal dated 30th May, 1988 passed in Appeal No. Rajkot-18/88,

in consequence, the possession has to be restored back in favour of

5

the appellants taking into consideration the latter order of the

Tribunal dated 21st September, 1992 on the premise that by fiction,

the possession is deemed to have been with the present appellants

and that submission was found to be misconceived by the learned

Single Judge and accordingly the petition came to be dismissed by

Order dated 17th July, 2007 which came to be further challenged at

the instance of the appellants in letters patent appeal before the

Division Bench of the High Court which was dismissed by Order

dated 24th March, 2015 holding that the appeal which was later

preferred by the co-parceners before the Land Tribunal was not

maintainable, thus, remitting the matter back to the prescribed

authority in appeal preferred by the other co-parceners of the Land

Tribunal was legally not sustainable in law.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to our notice

that the statement made by the appellants before this Court of the

notice not being served upon the co-parceners is factually incorrect

as the so-called alleged co-parceners were duly served and their

documents have been placed on record at pages 283, 289, 292 and

294 of the paper book.

6

9. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to justify the

factual statement which has been recorded by this Court in support

of which a sufficient material has been placed on record. Counsel

submits that the appellants are practically in possession of the

subject land in question and this fact can be verified either from the

official records or by holding an inquiry in reference to the person in

possession of the subject land in question.

10. Learned counsel further submits that the appellants are poor

agriculturists and this land is an irrigated land and is their only

source of livelihood and since this question has not been considered

by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment,

the matter be remitted back to the High Court for re-consideration

and the letters patent appeal be decided afresh.

11. In addition, learned counsel further submits that the only

question to be examined is that who is in possession of the subject

land in question, although the finding has been recorded by the

Tribunal under its Order dated 30th May 1988, but for all practical

purposes, the appellants are still in physical possession of the

subject land and if that stands verified from the records after inquiry

7

being conducted by the respondents, at least once the Act, 1976

stood repealed, divesting the rights of the appellants from the subject

property, in the given circumstances, may not be justified and needs

indulgence of this Court to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 142

of the Constitution to do complete justice with the parties.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while

supporting the impugned judgment, submits that the finding has

been returned by the Land Tribunal noticing the procedure that was

adopted for taking possession of the subject land in question as

prescribed under the Act, 1976 under the impugned order and that

has not been challenged at any later stage and that being the

uncontroverted factual statement on record, no error was committed

by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment which may call

for interference.

13. After we have heard learned counsel for the parties, we are also

of the view that once the Land Tribunal has returned a finding in

reference to the procedure which was followed as contemplated under

Section 10 of the Act, 1976 for the purpose of taking possession of

the subject land on 24th November, 1987 and making payment of

8

compensation on 29th February, 1988 after ascertaining the price

under Section 11 of the Act, not being assailed by the appellants at

any stage has attained finality.

14. So far as the appeal preferred by the co-parceners at the later

stage before the Urban Land Tribunal is concerned, we would

restrain from making any comment for the reason that the coparceners have never questioned the earlier proceedings at any later

stage even after the order was passed on 21st September, 1992 and

so far as the case of the present appellants is concerned, the Land

Tribunal had restrained in recording any finding in this regard.

15. That apart, the appellants have failed to place even any

documentary evidence in rebuttal before this Court that the finding

returned by the Tribunal of taking over possession in presence of

Panchas of the subject land on 24th November 1987, and payment of

compensation by an Order dated 29th February 1988, after

ascertaining the price under Section 11 of the Act is factually not

sustainable.

16. In absence thereof, the Court has to proceed on the premise as

to what will be the legal effect if the State authorities having gone

9

through a procedure prescribed under Section 10 of the Act, 1976

took possession of the subject land on 24th November, 1987 and the

payment of compensation in furtherance thereof was made over by

order dated 29th February, 1988 and unless the finding remain

undisturbed, the consequential effect would be that the State

Government was justified in holding possession and there appears

no error in the mutation opened in favour of the State Government.

17. So far as the writ petition filed by the appellants before the

learned Single Judge of the High Court is concerned, that was only

in reference to restitution of deemed possession because of the order

of remand passed by the Land Tribunal in appeal preferred by the

co-parceners as referred to in the Order dated 21st September, 1992

but that has not disturbed the finding returned by the Land Tribunal

in the case of the appellants as being reflected from the Order dated

30th May 1988.

18. That albeit being the factual position emerged from the record,

the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition and also the

letters patent appeal preferred by the appellants in the instant

proceedings.

10

19. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that

they are in possession of the subject land in question for all practical

purposes is not substantiated for the reason that the Tribunal has

returned a finding of possession being taken over by the Government,

after due compliance of the procedure prescribed under the law on

24th November 1987. Mere statement, without there being any

factual foundation, is of no substance.

20. The further submission made by learned counsel for the

appellants that the appellants being the poor agriculturists and this

is the only source of their livelihood, we have full sympathy with the

appellants but this Court has to proceed on the basis of pleadings

and in accordance with law. Once the land stood vested with the

Government on 24th November, 1987 and compensation has been

made over in furtherance thereof by the competent authority after

ascertaining the price of the subject land determined under Section

11 of the Act on 29th February 1988, there appears no justification

for the appellants to claim deemed possession of the subject land in

question and even if they are in physical possession, no right could

be claimed in reference to the subject land by the appellants.

11

21. Consequently, in our considered view, the appeal fails and is

accordingly dismissed. No costs.

22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

…………………………….J.

(AJAY RASTOGI)

…………………………….J.

(ABHAY S. OKA)

NEW DELHI

SEPTEMBER 05, 2022.