THAKERSHI POPATBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This petition arises in peculiar facts and circumstances and smacks of a huge scandal in valuable urban land of crores. The question raised is a simple and legal one. By an order dated January 16 1992 (Annexure-C to the petition) passed in revision under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Govt. revised the order of the Competent Authority declaring 31045 sq. mts. of land as surplus vacant land and the Govt. held that 24 individuals were entitled to hold 1500 sq. mts. each and therefore there was no surplus land. The order of the Competent Authority was passed on September 25 1986 and the Govt. in the revision filed after about five years on February 25 1991 passed the order of January 16 1991 The Competent Authority had held that the land was held by these persons as an association of persons and were entitled to one unit. The form was also filed accordingly. An application under Section 21 for exemption and sanction of the scheme was also filed by these persons as an association of persons and was rejected. Later on a case was put up that there was an unregistered partnership of 24 persons and it was dissolved before the commencement of the Act by unregistered deed of dissolution and therefore each of such person was entitled to a separate unit. The Competent Authority rejected that claim and declared surplus 31035 sq. mts. of urban vacant land of Survey No. 146 in Rajkot urban agglomeration. An appeal against the said order was preferred to the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal under the Act. The appeal also came to be dismissed and the findings of the Competent Authority were confirmed.

(2.) . Special Civil Application No. 5397 of 1987 was preferred against the same. It was also dismissed at the admission stage by a speaking order dated October 27 1989 which is at Annexure-A to the present petition. In that judgment the learned single Judge summarised the findings of the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority as follows: Thereafter the Tribunal considered the evidence which was there on the record and arrived at the conclusion that by a registered deed dated 15 the land admeasuring 42392 sq. mts. of Section No. 146 of village Raiya was purchased by the petitioner and two other persons jointly. For that mutation Entry No. 944 dated 3-3- 1966 was mutated. Thereafter the said land is not transferred by any registered deed. The so-called deed of dissolution dated 15-12-1973 is a doubtful document. The stamp paper for the said deed is dated 31st October 1967 which is purchased from Bombay. As the document is executed on 15-12-1973 it seems that on a cancelled stamp paper the alleged deed is executed. The said deed is not registered. The Tribunal further considered that the alleged firm of M/s. R. N. Construction Company was also not registered. Therefore the alleged deed of dissolution of the said Company was void. The Tribunal further held that the petitioner has failed to prove that it was a bona fide transaction Similarly Amratlal Construction Company was also not registered. The dissolution deed is not registered and as the said dissolution deed was executed after 7-2-1975 the petitioner has failed to prove that it was a bona fide transaction. The Tribunal further took into consideration that even in the form filled in by petitioner Ramanlal Nanalal Jasani the said form is filled in as an association of individuals In the said form this land is shown to be vacant land. The Tribunal further considered the fact that the application filed under Section 21 of the Act was also rejected and the land was open land at the time when the Act came into force It further considered the affidavit dated 1-8-1983 and arrived at the conclusion that when the Act came into force the land was open land and bogus partnerships and dissolution deeds were created. The Tribunal therefore rejected the appeal filed by the appellant (petitioner) by the order dated 1 That order is under challenge before this Court. and the contentions regarding the partnership and dissolution were considered and rejected by observing as follows The learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt further submitted that the Tribunal materially erred in holding that the dissolution deed and partnership deeds were bogus only because the deeds were not registered. He further submitted that the partner ship deeds are not required to be registered. It is true that under the Partnership Act or Registration Act partnership deeds are not required to be registered but at the same time when there are no registered deeds and when dissolution deed is also not registered if the fact finding authority arrives at the conclusion that the said deeds are not reliable it cannot be said that there is any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for interference. Apart from this aspect the Tribunal has rightly considered the fact that after the mutation entry dated 3-3-1966 in the record of rights there is no further mutation. Not only that but the stamp paper dated 3-10-1967 is used for the alleged dissolution deed dated 15 and that too the stamp paper was purchased in Bombay. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the fact that even in the form which is filled in by the petitioner when the Act came into force it has been filled in by the petitioner as association of individuals on the basis that the land was purchased by Ramanlal Nanalal Rameshchandra Vallabhji and Keshavlal Savdas and it has not been stated that the land was subsequently transferred by dissolution deeds. In my view these findings cannot be said to be in any way illegal or erroneous which call for any interference by this Court in a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Apparently it seems that the alleged transactions are bogus and created subsequent for defeating the provisions of the Act. Hence this petition is rejected. Notice discharged.

(3.) . Against this order of the learned single Judge Letters Patent Appeal No. 72 of 1989 was preferred. The same was disposed of on March 27 1991 by an order which is at Annexure-D to the petition. It is to be noted that the revision application was already filed on February 25 1991 This date mentioned in the order at Annexure-C is confirmed by looking to the original record. It is dated February 25 1991 and it is received on that day and also inwarded on that day. It is therefore clear that when the statement was made to the Court on March 27 1991 that the appellant desired to file a revision application before the State Government under Section 34 of the Act was not a correct statement and it was on that ground that he had sought permission to withdraw the appeal which was already disposed of by the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal on merits and was confirmed by the learned single Judge. The learned AGP did not raise any objection to the withdrawal of such disposed of appeal and thereby agreed to have the decision rendered by the appellate authority and the learned single Judge to become infructuous. It was only with the consent of parties that the Division Bench allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal being Appeal No. 151 of 1986 filed by the appellant before the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal.