STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VANMALIBHAI KALIDAS HAJARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Single Judge decided Special Civil Application Nos. 8102, 8103, 6594, 6595, 6596, 6597, 6598, 6599, 7536, 7608, 10320, 10321, 10322 and 10323 of 1995 by a common judgment and order dated 21.10.1997. One Dahyabhai Vestabhai, owner of land bearing survey No. 378/1 situated at village Dumas divided the said land into 48 plots. He applied for permission to sell these sub plots to make use thereof for non-agricultural purposes to the Assistant Collector, Olpad Prant, Surat under Sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The concerned Assistant Collector vide his order dated 29th April, 1967 granted permission to the holder of the aforesaid land with certain conditions inter alia to make use of sub-plots for non-agricultural purpose by transferring within two years from the date of the order. On 20th May, 1967, the owner of the land sold out the sub-plots to 48 persons including the petitioners in the present cases by registered sald deeds. Under the Town Planning Scheme as was published on 23rd December, 1969, the land in question was put under reservation for the purpose of extension of aerodrome for civil aviation and transport. The purchasers-petitioners took certain steps for extension of time limit by the Assistant Collector and also moved applications under the Bombay Land Revenue Code for non-agricultural permission. The permission was declined by the Taluka Development Officer on 18th June, 1971. Appeals against this order dated 18th June, 1971 were also dismissed. The State Government vide letter dated 20th April, 1981, issued direction that the permission to sell all the sub-plots should be treated as automatically cancelled. The concerned Mamlatdar ordered for entering the names of the original owner in the revenue record in respect of the land in dispute. Though the petitioners raised grievance that this order had been passed without giving an opportunity to them while their names have been entred in the revenue records in the year 1969-70 and the entry with regard to their names continued in the revenue records, the concerned Mamlatdar ultimately passed order dated 21st October, 1993 entering the names of the original owner in the revenue records. This gave rise to the filing of the Special Civil Applications as aforesaid.

(2.) Learned Single Judge found that it was not necessary to consider the various contentions because in his opinion, the matter was required to be considered by a High Power Committee of the State Government after hearing the parties concerned. Accordingly, the State of Gujarat has been directed to constitute a three member committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to decide the controversy after hearing all the parties concerned i.e., purchasers-petitioners, original owner of the land, Surat Municipal Corporation, Surat Urban Development Authority and Airport Authority of India, New Delhi through its representative at Surat and this Committee has to decide after hearing all the parties as to whether the land in question has to be reserved for the public purpose i.e., for extension of the aerodrome for civil aviation and transport and if at all it is decided to reserve for such purpose, necessary decision has to be taken then and there to acquire the land and to see that acquisition proceedings are completed within reasonable time, and if the Committee decides that this land is not required to be reserved for the aforesaid purpose, necssary decision is to be taken for grant of permission for construction of house by the petitioners on the land in dispute. This exercise has to be undertaken and completed within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of the order. All the parties have been directed to maintain status quo in respect of the land in dispute till the matter is decided by the Government and liberty has been granted to the petitioners for revival of the Special Civil Applications in case of difficulty and the rule has been made absolute in terms as aforesaid.

(3.) Against this common judgment and order containing innocuous directions and leaving the matter for the ultimate decision by the Committee constituted by the State of Gujarat itself and headed by the Chief Secretary, the State of Gujarat has preferred these time barred Letters Patent Appeals with Civil Applications in each of these Letters Patent Appeals seeking condonation of delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for a period of 171 days.