VALJIBHAI JAGJIVANBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule in Special Civil Application No. 1717 of 2004. Mr. Kamal Trivedi, Ld. Addl. Advocate General and Mr. K V Shelat, Ld. Advocate for respondents waive service of rule. These two petitions have been placed before us in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge [Coram : M R Shah, J.] dated 11th August, 2004. By said order the learned Judge has directed that these petitions be placed before the Division Bench since the controversy involved in these petitions is identical to the controversy that forms subject matter of Special Civil Application No. 5742 of 1984, which is already referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge [ Coram : A N Divecha, J. as he then was] by order dated 4th April, 1996. The reference has been made by the learned Single Judge by framing the question to be decided as under :-

(2.) The facts of the case in short can be stated as under :-

(3.) We have heard Mr. A J Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. K V Shelat, learned advocate for respondents nos. 3/1 and 3/2 and Mr. K B Trivedi, Ld. Addl. Advocate General for respondent no. 1 - State of Gujarat. Mr. A J Patel has submitted that by now the proposition of law on the issue under consideration of this Court has been crystallized and it is to the effect that the authority cannot quash and set aside or annul the transaction which is made contrary to the provisions of the Act and restore the status-quo ante after inordinate delay. According to him, in the present case the power conferred upon the Collector by provisions of section 9 has been exercised at a belated stage to annul the transaction and during intervening period number of developments have taken place. Such order if allowed to exist, it would create chaos. Hence it is required to be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that after the purchase of the land from original vendor, the petitioner has made substantial investment that is to the extent of Rs. 28 lacs and now with the introduction of the Town Planning Scheme half of the land has become part of the said scheme and possession has been taken over by the Town Planning Authority. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be now evicted from the said land and he cannot be now called upon to hand over the land to the original vendor. According to him, even if the provisions of the Act are applicable, the petitioner being owner of the adjoining land, there is no breach of section 7. He has also submitted that there is no notice served on the original owner under section 6 (2) of the Act. He has placed reliance on several decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court which will be referred to in the course of the judgment.