STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PRAVINKUMAR R PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant ­ State of Gujarat has filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging order dated 16/17.06.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3327 of 1989 allowing the petition filed by the original petitioner / land holder quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.04.1986 passed by the competent authority under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act, which was confirmed by the Tribunal by order dated 03.02.1989 in Appeal No.158 of 1986.

(2.) The facts leading to filing the present appeal are as under:

(3.) Shri P.K.Jani, learned Additional Advocate General assailed order of learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that before passing of order of status quo the notification under Section 10(3) of the Act was published declaring that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under Section 10(1) of the Act shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances and thereafter possession was taken over after following due procedure. It is next contended that Section 3 of the Repeal Act provides saving clause and, therefore, when there is vesting of any waste land under Section 10(3) of the Act and possession is taken over by the State Government or authorized officer or competent authority, the provisos of the Repeal Act will not effect and/or alter possession. That main thrust of the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General was based on absence of any publication of notification in the gazette of Government of Gujarat with respect to cancellation of the notification published under Section 10(3) of the Act and it cannot be treated as cencelled only on the fact that there was some internal communication between the authority and the Manager of the Government Press. Inter alia, it is contended that once the competent authority had issued notice under section 10(5) of the Act, then land owner in absence of order of stay or injunction was obliged to hand over possession and in case if such possession is not handed over then also the Government had authority under Section 10(6) of the Act to enter upon land and take the possession. In the facts of the case, section 10(5) notice was issued to the land owners and failure to hand over possession of the land, the officers of the State Government by following procedure including that of drawing panchnama in presence of panchas had taken over possession. It is further submitted that after possession was taken over by the competent authority / authority of the State Government, the learned Single Judge admitted writ petition being Special Civil Application No.3327 of 1989 on 19.01.1991 and also granted the order of status quo. Even another order is passed in Special Civil Application No.258 of 1989 on 19.01.1991 and also granted the order of status quo. Even another order is passed in Special Civil Application No.258 of 1992 on 18.01.1992 whereby the State Government was directed not to take possession of the land in question. The above fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and accordingly the order deserves to be quashed and set aside.