MOHANSINGH GURUCHARANSINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four Special Civil Applications involve common questions of fact and law and, therefore, all these four Special Civil Applications are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) Originally one Shri Chhotalal Patel held the land bearing S. No:350 admeasuring 2 Acres and 21 Gunthas situated in the St. of village Dani Limda. After the death of Shri Chhotalal Patel, the land was inherited by his four sons, namely, Hiralal., Rameshbhai, Naranbhai and Umedbhai and they inherited about 1076 sq. mts. of land as alleged by the petitioners and it has been given S. Nos. 350 2/1, 350 2/ 2, 350 2/3, and 350 2/4. It is the case of the petitioner Mohansingh in Special Civil Application No. 654 of 1985 that he with his brothers Amriksingh, Gajendrasingh and Smt. Gurudarshankaur i. e. wife of his yet another brother Bhupendrasingh had purchased the land bearing S. Nos. 350 2/1, 350 2/ 2, 350 2/ 3 admeasuring 3228 sq. mts. from Rameshbhai, Hiralal and Naranbhai respectively by three separate registered sale deeds dated 7-7-72 for an amount of Rs. 25720/-. Thus, three sale deeds were executed by above referred three brothers in favour of the petitioner along with his two brothers and yet another brother's wife. It is the case of the petitioner Mohansingh that there was no partnership firm and it was a simple case of joint purchase and the persons from whom it was purchased also of not hold any excess land under the Act, and further that the petitioners have got no other land except the land in question. The purchase was made in order to construct a Cinema Theatre on this land. No Objection Certificate having also been issued by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad on 6-8-73 and after obtaining No Objection Certificate, the plans had been submitted for the construction of Cinema Theatre, which were passed and approved on 21-10-73 and the construction of the Cinema Theatre was also started in the year 1975. It is also the case of the petitioners that there said land was included within the limits of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in February, 1975 and, thereafter, the petitioners received a notice from the Corporation not to make further construction until they obtain a certificate from Urban Land Ceiling Authority. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") came into force on 17-2-76 and the petitioner Mohansingh along with his two brothers and yet another brother's wife, who was party to the purchase, filled the form under S. 6 of the Act. It is the admitted case of the parties that only one form was filled up on behalf of all the four persons including the petitioner Mohansingh and according to the petitioners, by mistake in column No. 2 of the said form, the word "Pedhi", meaning "Firm" was mentioned, although in fact there was no firm or a partnership firm. It is also stated that the Police Commissioner vide his letter dated 20-8-76 extended the permission to construct the Cinema Theatre up to 17-10-77. The matter remained pending with the Competent Officer up to 1982 when by the order dated 23-8-82 it was held by the Competent Officer that the petitioners were not holding any excess land. It was also held that according to the village form No. 7-12, each one of the petitioners owned one fourth share in the property. Petitioner Mohansingh's case, therefore, has to be confined for 807 sq. mts. of land only because according to the petitioners, there were four purchasers and each one of them had one-fourth share in the property.

(3.) The petitioner Mohansingh has also alleged that all the members of the party to these sales, as aforesaid, decided to construct the Cinema Theatre and, therefore, an application under S.20 was preferred and the policy of the Government was laid down in Circular/Resolution dated 9-12-77. It was decided by the Government to exempt the land for the purpose of constructing the Cinema Theatres on the surplus land. A copy of the Circular/ Resolution dated 9-12-77 has been placed on record. On 31-7-79, a reply was received from the Government to the effect that development plans submitted by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation was pending for approval before the State Government and, therefore, only after receiving the approval, the petitioners may re-file the application. Petitioners again submitted the application under S. 20 for examption of the land. As no decision was taken by the State Government, the petitioners addressed a letter dated 5-7-79. It has also been stated by the petitioners that vide letter dated Nil June, 1982) the Government dismissed the Application of the petitioner filed under S. 20 of the Act on the ground that the said land is included in the residential zone in the Master Plan and that the land in question was required for a public purpose, although no specific purpose, as such, was given out. The Town Planning Officer informed the Deputy Secretary of the Revenue Department that the said land was included in the Local Commercial Zone. According to the petitioners, the application had been rejected erroneously and another application under S. 20 of the Act was moved again on 1-9-86 before the State Government asking for exemption in view of the fact that the land was already in the Commercial Zone and there is an order of the Competent Officer dated 13-882 holding that the petitioners did not held any vacant excess land. According to the petitioners, while their application under S. 20 was pending, an injunction order dated 22-3-83 was received by the petitioners from the State Government that the Government had decided to revise the order dated 13-8-82 under S. 34 of the Act and, therefore, the status quo till further orders with regard to the land in question was to be maintained. Later on, show cause notice dated 25-8-83 was received by the petitioners from the State Government requiring them to show cause. The notice was based on the ground that in the form "Firm" had been shown by the declarant and the lands were purchased without defining the share of the petitioner Mohansingh and three other parties and in the Revenue Records, the names of all the persons were shown jointly. In pursuance of this show cause notice, the petitioner Mohansingh appeared before the State Government and submitted all the necessary facts and contended that the earlier order cannot be revised after a period of about more than one year, especially when there was no "Partnership Firm" or "Firm". It is the case of the petitioners that they did not hold any excess land and it was on account of a bona fide mistake that the word "Firm" has been mentioned. The show cause notice was contested and it was also made clear that when shared, the petitioner Mohansingh may have 807 sq. Mts. of land and in view of this position, the order could not be revised.