KANTIBHAI NANUBHAI PATEL Vs. URBAN LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed by Kantilal Nanubhai Patel and another, original petitioners in Special Civil Application No.3322 of 1994 being aggrieved of the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge in the said petition dated 19.9.1997. Mr.Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge is in two parts. In the first part the learned Single Judge has recorded that, 'Mr.S.V. Bachani, advocate for the petitioner had stated that he had appeared at notice stage and thereafter his junior, Mr.K.K. Trivedi had appeared at the time when rule was issued and then papers were taken away by Mr.K.K. Trivedi, which fact is recorded in the order dated 27.8.1997. It is thereafter that Mr.Bachani filed an affidavit dated 12.9.1997 in which it is stated that the papers were handed over to Mr. Jariwala, the other advocate on record. Said Mr.Jariwala has also filed an affidavit stating that the papers were taken away from him, as stated by him in his telegram dated 20.8.1997 about one and half years ago, with a view to engage Mr.P.M. Thakkar. Mr.P.M. Thakkar was required by order dated 27.8.1997 to file a Note dated 16.9.1997 wherein it is stated that, "Having gone through his office record he is unable to find any such matter in which he is said to have been engaged by the petitioners of this petition.' The Court has also recorded that, 'Petitioner no.2, Ratilal Nanubhai Patel, was present and stated that the other petitioner, Kantilal Nanubhai Patel has gone abroad. He further stated that he leaves the matter on the Court to render decision in this petition.' Thereafter, the Court requested Mr.M.C. Shah, learned advocate who was present representing Mr.Jariwala (the advocate on record for petitioners) to assist the Court in the hearing of the petition and he was good enough to argue the petition for the petitioners. Relevant portion of para 3 of the judgement is reproduced for ready perusal:

(2.) Learned Single Judge then considered the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioners on merits. Learned Judge while considering the contentions raised by learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent authorities recorded that the petition was filed in the year 1994, challenging the impugned order made in 1989. It was, therefore, contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the same is grossly delayed and should not be entertained. It was then contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader that the notification under sections 10(1) and 10(3) has been issued and the lands have vested in the Government free from all encumbrances. It was next contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader that Appeal No.141 of 1994 was filed by petitioner no.1 against the orders which are challenged in this petition. Therefore, the petitioners having availed alternative and efficacious remedy are not entitled to maintain this petition. What follows next is important. Learned Assistant Government Pleader stated that in Appeal No.141 of 1994 filed before the Urban Land Tribunal, a xerox copy of certified copy of the judgement, said to have been delivered on 13.9.1995 in the present petition was produced, though the present petition was pending and no such judgement was ever delivered. It was submitted that since no one except the petitioners were to benefit by filing a forged judgement in the name of this Court, these petitioners should be held to be the persons who are not fit to carry writ of this Court. Para 4 of the judgement is reproduced for ready perusal in toto as it records in detail as to how a xerox of copy of certified copy of the judgement said to have been delivered on 13.9.1995 in the Special Civil Application No.3322 of 1994 was produced on the strength of which Urban Land Tribunal remanded the matter by its order dated 23.7.1996 and directed the subordinate authorities to proceed further as per the decision of the High Court. Learned Judge has also recorded that as per the record of the office of the Government Pleader and even according to learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners no such decision was ever rendered by this Court and the petition was pending. Even as per petitioner no.2 who was present before the learned Judge stated that he was not aware of the petition having been already decided.

(3.) The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners about pendency of the application under sec.20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "ULC Act") and that during pendency of such application, the land in question could not have been declared excess, were considered in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Darothi Clare Parrieira and others v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 2553 The learned Single Judge held that even on merits the petitioners have no case at all. Therefore, the petition deserves to be rejected. The learned Single Judge ordered for discharge of rule with no order as to costs.