DIVYAKANT NIRANJAN KADAKIA Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 30.9.1974 the petitioner made an Application to the Nagar Panchayat, Devgadh Baria for allotting 100 sq.yds. out of C.S.No.1720, which was granted to him by the Nagar Panchayat as per its Resolution No.724 dated 20.12.1974. Thereafter, after a lapse of period of almost 4 years the Nagar Panchayat has granted him permission to construct over that land on 28.7.1978. Thereafter the petitioner had applied before the District Development Officer (DDO), Godhra, for purchasing the said plot and on 11.10.1979 order was passed by the DDO, Godhra to sell the said plot to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. which was prevailing rate at that time. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the amount and put up small construction of his residential building on the said plot in 1980-81 which he is using till today for the residential purpose.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that after having purchased the said land he was duly paying the municipal tax and also N.A. Assessment for all these years. The Collector, Panchmahals had informed the City Survey Superintendent for entering his name on record for carrying out survey. In 1986 Shri Bachubhai Shukla and Shri Kaushik Bachubhai Shukla (present respondent No.3) raised the dispute for the first time before the Collector, Panchmahals, that DDO has no authority to grant the land in question to the petitioner as it was granted to M/s. Ranchhodbhai Manubhai Brothers on lease. The said firm was closed, therefore, the said plot cannot be sold to the petitioner. The Collector, Panch Mahals by his order dated 14.3.1988 held that Shri Bachubhai and Shri Kaushikbhai Shukla are not entitled to get the land as they failed to establish their claim on the land in question, but at the same time he held that Nagar Panchayat also could not have disposed of the land by sale in favour of the petitioner and that the possession of the land of the petitioner was unlawful (Annexure:A). This order passed by the Collector, Panch Mahals was challenged in Revision before the State Government which was dismissed on 4.4.1994 (Annexure : B). Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel Shri Jadeja for the petitioner vehemently submitted that it was a bonafide transaction between the petitioner and the Nagar Panchayat and in a lawful manner he has purchased the land from M/s. Ranchhodbhai Manubhai Brothers and by making full payment of the land in question as per prevailing rate in 1978, after it was given on rent in 1974, he put up construction on it after obtaining the permission from the DDO, Godhra, in 1979. He submitted that since 1974 when the plot was given on rent to him and in 1978 when the permission was granted for construction and till he completed the construction in 1979 neither Bachubhai nor Kaushikbhai made any grievance and for the first time they approached the Collector, Panchmahals only in 1986 and claimed the possession of the land. He submitted that though the Collector had dismissed their claim, surprisingly he held that the possession of the land in question was unauthorized. The Revisional Authority the Government also failed to appreciate all these aspect and dismissed his Revision Application. He submitted that since 1974 i.e. for a period of three decades he is in possession of the land in question with a construction standing there since 1980-81. He submitted that if the petition is dismissed today and he is asked to vacate the land in question then he will be thrown out on the road and he will be having no roof on his head. He submitted that it would be a travesty of justice if he is asked to vacate the land in question after such a long time. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BRIJ LAL v/s. BOARD OF REVENUE & ORS., reported in AIR 1994 SC 1128. As per the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the petitioner was allotted plot which he had nourished for more than two decades. The allotment was cancelled only on the ground that he was a minor at the time of allotment. Right from the lower Authority upto the High Court it was held that cancellation of the plot was proper. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the person remained in possession for a period of more than two decades and cultivated and nourished the land for so many years and when there was no other irregularity or illegality committed then on such ground he cannot be dispossessed and on that ground the cancellation order was quashed.