SHAH JITENDRA NANALAL Vs. PATEL LALLUBHAI ISHVERBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter comes up before the Full Bench on the following order of reference by our learned Brothers P. D. Desai and R. C. Mankad JJ.

(2.) The papers of the case to be placed before the learned Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench to consider the question whether or not there is any material and substantial distinction between the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 7 of the Gujarat Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act 1972 (since repealed) and clauses (b) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act 1976 and whether therefore a conditional decree for specific performance subject to the condition of the plaintiff obtaining exemption from the State Government under clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 20 of the Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 can or cannot be passed following the decisions of the Division Bench in First Appeal No. 1174 of 1968 decided on 25/04/1974 and First Appeal No. 251 of 1967 decided on 22/11/1974 in the context of sec. 7 sub-sec. (2) of the Gujarat Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act 1972 The need for consideration of a larger Bench arises of the important question of law involved and because the decision of the Division Beach in KANUBHAI V. NAYANKUNJ SOCIETY 19 G. L. R. 920 which takes the view that sec. 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 confers upon the State Government power to exempt which is materially different from the corresponding provision of sec. 7 of the Gujarat Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act 1972 requires in our opinion reconsideration.

(3.) These questions arise on the following facts. Defendants Nos. 3 and 5 entered into an agreement with defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to certain land comprised in survey No. 333 of village Amraiwadi. The sale was to be made to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 or their nominee at Rs. 12.00 per sq. yard and the extent covered by the agreement was 3 acres of land. This agreement was executed on 4-7-1966. Thereafter defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in their turn entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 1-7-1967 to sell a portion of such land. to the plaintiff at Rs. 15.25 p. per sq. yard. The portion agreed to be sold was subsequently reconstituted under Town Planning Scheme No. 27 into Plot of 8451 sq. yards. Subsequently there appears to have been a suit for specific performance as between defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on one hand and defendants Nos. 3 to 5 on the other pending which suit the suit from which this appeal arises was filed as Civil Suit No. 1915 of 1970. The suit filed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as plaintiffs Civil Suit No. 2062 of 1969 was compromised between the parties thereto under Ex. 125 settlement based upon which Ex. 124 decree was passed on 5-7-1972. The plaintiff was not a party to that suit and naturally therefore he was not a party to that decree. In this suit the plaintiff was non-suited in so far as specific performance was concerned though certain other reliefs were granted to him. Against this the plaintiff has come up in appeal.