LexKAPILABEN AMBALAL PATEL & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1117 1117 [2020] 8 S.C.R. 1117 KAPILABEN AMBALAL PATEL & ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 6380 of 2012) MAY 06, 2020 [A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.] Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – ss.6, 9, 10(1), 10(3), 10(5), 10(6), 11, 20(1)(a), 21, 33 – Appellants/land owners are legal representatives of the original owner of the land in question – Possession of the surplus/excess land was taken over under a Possession Panchanama dated.20.03.1986 – Eventually, Power of Attorney holder of one of the land owner filed writ petition challenging the Panchnama – Partly allowed by Single Judge – Appeal filed by State Government – Meanwhile, the appellants filed an independent writ petition in 2001 for the same relief – Appeal filed by the State Government was allowed by Division Bench – Writ petition filed by the appellants was allowed by Single Judge – Order set aside by Division Bench – On appeal, held: Appellants resorted to all possible pleas – Further, they chose to file the writ petition only in the name of one of the land owner in the capacity of his Power of Attorney holder, little realizing that the authority given by him came to an end after his demise – It was only after the other appellants realised that the decision of the Single Judge was flawed and was justly assailed by State Government on that count, they filed the present writ petition – Appellants thought of the last attempt to assail the Possession Panchnama itself without seeking any further relief of declaration regarding the earlier proceedings which had attained finality – Writ petition filed by the appellants after lapse of 14 years was hopelessly barred by delay and suffered from laches – Impugned order upheld – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Dismissing the appeal, the Court 1.1 The appellants have resorted to all possible pleas. First, the application for exemption under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was moved, which was allowed A B C D E F G H 1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 8 S.C.R. by the competent authority on 6.3.1980, but the appellants chose to withdraw the same. That request was eventually granted by the competent authority on 1.2.1985. The appellants then waited till the notification under Section 10(3) of the 1976 Act was issued on 25.7.1985 and opted for remedy of exemption under Section 21 by filing an application on 22.8.1985. That came to be rejected on 15.12.1986 against which decision a review application was filed only by Devikaben Chandubhai Bhailalbhai (daughter of Chandubhai Bhailalbhai Patel, who in turn was son of Bhailalbhai Parsottambhai Patel- one of the five sons of original owner of the land in question, Parsottambhai Patel. The other four sons were- (i) Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel, (ii) Maganbhai Parsottambhai Patel, (iii) Babarbhai Parsottambhai Patel, and (iv) Ramanbhai Parsottambhai Patel) alongwith her three siblings, after lapse of two years. Nevertheless, the same was entertained by the authority concerned and after quashing the entire order in appeal, a remand order came to be passed on 19.9.1998. Even in review proceedings, the fact of State authorities having taken forcible possession of the surplus/excess land on 20.3.1986 vide Possession Panchnama, was reiterated, as can be discerned from the order dated 19.9.1998. It is not clear as to why the appellants did not take clue at least from such unambiguous stand taken by the respondent and forthwith proceed to assail the stated stand of the State (of having taken over forcible possession on 20.3.1986). Besides taking possession, the respondent had determined the compensation for which notice under Section 11 was issued to the appellants on 17.5.1986. It is not the case of the appellants that they were unaware even about that development until 2001. No such plea is taken by the appellants in the writ petition filed in the year 2001. It is only after the competent authority declined to issue No Objection Certificate vide order dated 19.5.1999, they thought of changing the track by taking advantage of the repeal Act having come into force on 30.3.1999. However, they chose to file the writ petition only in the name of Kamleshbhai Parekh in the capacity of Power of Attorney holder of late Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel, being SCA No. 8402/1999, little realizing that the authority given by Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel had come to an end after his demise on 31.12.19
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.