Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 617 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Gopalbhai Devabhai Patel

2014-05-07

MOHINDER PAL, RAVI R.TRIPATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. This Court had an occasion to consider this matter for admission on 31.03.2014 and the Court, after hearing learned AGP Mr. Rindani setting out reasons in details deemed it proper to admit the appeal and on a request made by learned advocate Mrs. Ketty A. Mehta for respondents No. 1 to 7, Registry was directed to place the LPA for final hearing in the week commencing from 28.04.2014. Respondents No. 1 to 7, after having obtained an order of fixed date of final hearing were not satisfied and therefore, the matter was taken to the Hon'ble the Apex Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.9533 of 2014. Order of the Hon'ble the Apex Court is reproduced hereunder for ready perusal: "Heard. This special leave petition is directed against an order dated 31st March, 2014 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Civil Application (For Stay) No.3167 of 2014 filed in Letters Patent Appeal No.412 of 2014. The High Court has by the said order stayed the order passed by a Single Judge, allowing the writ appeal in favour of the petitioners. When the matter initially came up for hearing before us on 4th April, 2014, we issued notice to the respondents returnable on 11th April, 2014 and directed the parties to maintain status quo in the meantime regarding ownership and possession qua the disputed property. Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Additional Solicitor General, today appears on behalf of respondent No. 1- Surat Municipal Corporation while Mr. Dhaval Nanavati, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2-Surat Urban Development Authority. Ms. Hemantika Wahi represented by Ms. Jaisal has entered appearance on behalf respondent No. 3-State. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that since the main appeal is coming up for final hearing before the High Court on 28th April, 2014, it is unnecessary to keep these proceedings pending in this Court which could be disposed of with a request to the High Court to expedite the disposal of the appeal. The interim order passed by this Court could in the meantime continue with the direction that the petitioners shall cooperate for an expeditious disposal of the matter. Mr. The interim order passed by this Court could in the meantime continue with the direction that the petitioners shall cooperate for an expeditious disposal of the matter. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, has no objection to the disposal of this special leave petition on the above terms and assures the Court that the petitioners would not in any manner delay the disposal of the matter pending before the High Court and will not ask for any adjournment. In the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the submissions made at Bar, we dispose of this special leave petition with the direction that the interim arrangement made by us directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the disputed property insofar as ownership and possession thereof is concerned, shall continue pending final disposal of Letters Patent Appeal No.412 of 2014. We request the High Court to expedite the hearing and disposal of the appeal within a period of three months from today." 2. It is after this order passed by the Hon'ble the Apex Court the matter is listed before this Court on 28.04.2014 and the Court passed the following order: "Learned Advocate (sic., senior advocate) Mr. Prashant G. Desai with learned Advocate Mr. Dhaval G. Nanavati for respondent No. 8 invited attention of the Court to the order passed by the Hon'ble the Apex Court. In view of that order, learned Senior Advocate requested that the matter should be taken up on priority basis. The matter is adjourned to 02.05.2014." 3. On 02.05.2014 the matter was adjourned to 05.05.2014 and on 05.05.2014 the Court passed the following order: "Ld. Adv. Mr. Dhaval G. Nanavati has urgency in the matter and ld. GP for the appellant has also urgency in the matter. Beside that there is a direction from the Hon'ble the Supreme Court to decide the matter at the earliest. S.O. To 6/5/14." 4. On 06.05.2014 the matter was heard for some time and then it was kept for today. 5. Heard learned AGP Mr. Rashesh Rindani for the appellant. The learned AGP apprises the Court of the basic facts, which are set out in the list of events as well as in the memo of LPA in para 3. S.O. To 6/5/14." 4. On 06.05.2014 the matter was heard for some time and then it was kept for today. 5. Heard learned AGP Mr. Rashesh Rindani for the appellant. The learned AGP apprises the Court of the basic facts, which are set out in the list of events as well as in the memo of LPA in para 3. Instead of articulating the facts of the case in different words, the Court is of the opinion that it will be appropriate if paras 3.1 to 3.8 are reproduced so as to see that no discrepancy creeps in. The same are reproduced hereunder: "3.1 The petitioners are the original owners of agricultural lands bearing Block No.133/1 + 2 ad measuring 8296 sq meters of Village Magob (hereinafter referred to as "the subject land", for sake of brevity). The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ('Town Planning Act' for short) is enacted in exercise of the legislative powers vested in the Gujarat State Legislature with the object of consolidating and amending the law relating to the making and execution of development plans and town planning schemes in the State of Gujarat. Respondent No. 9 - Surat Urban Development Authority-is constituted under the provisions of the TP Act. Respondent No. 8 - Surat Municipal Corporation is also a statutory authority to implement the scheme. 3.2 In the year 1986 the said subject lands were included in the development plan, which was introduced by the present respondent No. 9 - Surat Urban Development Authority (hereafter referred to as 'SUDA' of sake of brevity). That in the said development plan the subject lands were reserved for M-62, Transport Centre. The development plan came to be revised in the year 1996 pursuant to which the subject land were shown reserved for T-13, Transport Godown and Marketing Yard for Surat Municipal Corporation (hereafter referred to as "SMC" for sake of brevity). It may kindly be appreciated that notice regarding publication of the Draft revised development was published in part -II of the Extraordinary Gazette of the Gujarat Government on 29.02.1996. On 26.08.1997, SUDA has submitted the said revised development plan to the present appellant State of Gujarat for approval under section 16 of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976. On 26.08.1997, SUDA has submitted the said revised development plan to the present appellant State of Gujarat for approval under section 16 of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976. It is humbly stated and submitted that the Government of Gujarat was of the opinion that substantial modifications in the said draft revised development and regulations submitted by the SUDA is necessary and therefore in exercise of powers conferred upon the State under section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Town Planning act, had published the said modifications under the Government Notification dated 17.05.2001. Thereafter, the State Government had in exercise of powers conferred under section 17 of the Town Planning act, had finalised the revised development plan vide notification dated 02.09.2004 whereby at sr. No. 113, the lands including the land in question reserved for Transport Godown and Marketing Yard for SMC (T-13) shall be deleted from the said reservation and were designated for commercial use under section 12(2)(a) of the Act as shown in the accompanying plan No. 9. The appellant crave leave of this Hon'ble court to rely upon the said notification along with the copy of the plan appended thereto. I therefore humbly say and submit that the land in question were designated for 'commercial purpose' and were deleted from reservation of 'T-23 Transportnagar Godown'. 3.3 It may kindly be appreciated that since the subject lands were included in the Town Planning scheme, it was agreed between the SMC and the original owners that that 60% of the land will be given to the Land Area Development Authority, SMC and 40% of the land in the final plot shall be given to the petitioners-owners. That as per the said understanding, SMC passed a resolution being resolution No.19556 (3) to the effect on 29.05.1998 and even the original owners-the petitioners gave their consent to SUD. On 12.06.1998, SUDA, passed a resolution giving its consent to SMC for taking steps to do the needful. As the area in question was outside the municipal limit, the Town Planning Scheme was to be prepared and executed by SMC as per resolution No.1986 (4) dated 09.10.1998 of SUD, subject to approval of the Government. On 12.06.1998, SUDA, passed a resolution giving its consent to SMC for taking steps to do the needful. As the area in question was outside the municipal limit, the Town Planning Scheme was to be prepared and executed by SMC as per resolution No.1986 (4) dated 09.10.1998 of SUD, subject to approval of the Government. At this stage it may kindly be appreciated that on 16.01.1999, SMC had passed a resolution to the effect that if 60% of reserved land for SMC is received by SMC without payment of price, the remaining 40% of the land would be given to petitioners-owners as final plot. 3.4 On 09.02.1999 the Chief Town Planner gave consultation under section 41(1) of the Act the proposal of the SMC to make draft town planning scheme No. 53 (Magob - Dumbhal), the intention to make the draft town planning scheme was published in the Government Gazette dated 24.03.1999. Thereafter, SMC prepared draft town planning scheme No. 53 in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Town Planning Act. On 06.08.1999 the Town Planning Committee approved the action of submitting the said draft scheme to State Government under section 48(1) of the town Planning Act. The draft scheme came to be submitted to the State Government on 11.08.1999 and the same was sanctioned on 16.12.1999. 3.5 It appears thereafter on 24.10.2000 an agreement came to be executed between the SMC and the petitioners under section 88 of the Town Planning Act, whereby it was agreed that the petitioners would hand over possession of 60% of their lands and 40% of land would be given as final plot No. 50, ad measuring 3317 sq meters which would be handed over to the petitioners. It is humbly stated and submitted that at no stage the alleged agreement was brought to the notice of the State Government that redistribution and valuation statement came to be issued in view of the Town Planning scheme and accordingly the petitioners-original owners have been allotted final plot No. 50 in the Town Planning Scheme No.53. 3.6 It may kindly be appreciated that the Town Planning Officer was appointed on 20.03.2001 and the notice under rule 26 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the Town Planning Rules") came to be issued on 31.01.2002. 3.6 It may kindly be appreciated that the Town Planning Officer was appointed on 20.03.2001 and the notice under rule 26 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the Town Planning Rules") came to be issued on 31.01.2002. The Town Planning Officer, after framing the preliminary town planning scheme has submitted the same to the State Government on 31.01.2002. the Town Planning Officer, after framing the preliminary town planning scheme ha submitted the same to the State Government on 29.12.2010, which came to be sanctioned on 09.08.2012. 3.7 The SMC issued notice dated 20.8.2012 to the original petitioners claiming possession of the land which constitutes 60% land to be received by the SMC. The original petitioners gave their reply through their advocate on 21.08.2012 contending that as per the agreement dated 24.10.2000, 60% land was to be handed over to the SMC for specific public purpose, viz. for T-13, Transport t Godown and Marketing Yard and 40% land was to be allotted to petitioners as final plot in Town Planning Scheme NO.53. It was alleged that there was a breach in the conditions of the agreement, which therefore stands cancelled. 3.8 That SMC forwarded a proposal vide communication dated 19th July 2012 to the Officer on Special Duty and Ex Officio Joint Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department thereby proposing a change of purpose inasmuch as that the instead of the subject land being reserved for "Transport Godown and Marketing Yard" were now propose to be reserved for "High Tech Amusement Park". That the State Government in the exercise of powers conferred under section 65 of the Town Planning Act and in absence of any notice of the agreement dated 24.10.2000 executed between the SMC and the petitioners, sanctioned the preliminary town planning scheme vide Notification dated 9.08.2012 and allotted the subject lands for "High Tech Amusement Park" to the appropriate authority instead of "Transport Godown and Marketing Yard". 6. Learned AGP Mr. Rashesh Rindani made a categorical statement that since 1986 there were no objections filed by the respondents herein-the land owners. The learned AGP made another very important statement that there is no substantial change in the so called agreement which is termed as 'statutory agreement'. The learned AGP was requested to explain as to what does statutory agreement mean. Rashesh Rindani made a categorical statement that since 1986 there were no objections filed by the respondents herein-the land owners. The learned AGP made another very important statement that there is no substantial change in the so called agreement which is termed as 'statutory agreement'. The learned AGP was requested to explain as to what does statutory agreement mean. The learned AGP submitted that an agreement entered into in light of the provisions contained in section 88 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is referred to as 'statutory agreement'. 7. Section 88 of the Act empowers the appropriate authority to make agreement. In the present case, the respondent-land owner voluntarily entered into an agreement with the authority. A copy of that agreement is produced at Annexure 'A' to the petition. The learned AGP invited attention of the Court to the said agreement and submitted that the said agreement is having two salient features -- (i) 60% of the land of the land owners will be available to authority for putting it to use for the public purpose and 40% of the land will be available to owners of the land. The learned AGP submitted that meaning thereby, (i) there cannot be any change in this ratio of 60 : 40 and there cannot be any change in putting to use 60% of the land which is going to be available to the authority, which is agreed to be put to use for the public purpose. The learned AGP submitted that if all these conditions are maintained the respondents-land owners cannot have any complaint and have no reason to elect to avoid that agreement. The learned AGP in this regard invited attention of this Court to the relevant part of the judgment and order passed by the learned Singe Judge. The learned AGP submitted that the learned Single Judge has recorded in para 16 as under: "16. In the above factual background, the following questions arise for consideration : [1] Whether the reservation of the subject land for `High Tech Amusement Park instead of `Transport Godown and Marketing Yard and allotment of Final Plot No.46 instead of Final Plot No.50 to the petitioners, amounts to breach of the conditions of the statutory agreement under section 88 of the Town Planning Act? If the answer is in the affirmative, what would be the consequence of such breach? [2] Whether the provisions of section 65 of the Town Planning Act have been satisfied while modifying the preliminary town planning scheme and designating the subject lands for use of `High Tech Amusement Park instead of `Transport Godown and Marketing Yard?" 8. The learned AGP submitted that so far as Question No.1 is concerned it is answered by the learned Single Judge in para 21, which reads as under: "Insofar as allotment of Final Plot No.46 in place of Final Plot No.50 is concerned, a perusal of the part plan of the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.53 (Magob-Dumbhal), reveals that Final Plot No. 46, in effect and substance, is the same as Final Plot No. 50 except that the utility centre which was adjoining Final Plot No. 50 has been merged with the Final Plot No. 50 and has been numbered as Final Plot No. 46. Under the circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that the respondents have committed breach of the agreement by allotting Final Plot No. 46 instead of Final Plot No.50 appears to be contrary to the record of the case." (emphasis supplied) 9. The learned AGP then invited attention of the Court to the paras wherein the learned Single Judge has discussed the second question, namely, paras 18, 19, 20, 22 to 30. 10. The learned AGP submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in holding that the change of public purpose from 'Transport Godown and Marketing Yard' to 'High Tech Amusement Park' is a substantial change and therefore, the respondents-original land owners were required to be heard before effecting that change. The learned AGP submitted that as submitted hereinabove significant part of the agreement was that 60% of the land is to be used for public purpose and there is no change because instead of using the land for 'Transport Godown and Marketing Yard' the land is now going to be used for putting up 'High Tech Amusement Park'. The learned AGP Mr. Rindani and learned senior advocate Mr. Prashant G. Desai appearing for Surat Municipal Corporation invited attention of the Court to para 2.23 of the petition. The learned AGP Mr. Rindani and learned senior advocate Mr. Prashant G. Desai appearing for Surat Municipal Corporation invited attention of the Court to para 2.23 of the petition. The contents of which will be relevant for our purpose and therefore, the same is reproduced hereunder: "2.23 The petitioners have definite information that the tenders for the amusement park are invited by the respondent No. 1 without there being any reservation of some of the lands including the petitioners land; and have included petitioners land in the area of amusement park. The petitioners also have information that one Raj Green Infrastructure Pvt Ltd has offered royalty of Rs. 4,61 crores on yearly basis to be given to respondent No. 1. This clearly shows that the land of agriculturists which are taken to the extent of 60% of the land free of charge are being put to use for the purpose of profiteering. The action of respondent No. 1 is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the T.P. Act." (emphasis supplied) The learned AGP submitted that section 12 of the Act provides for, "Contents of Draft Development Plan" and subsection (2) of the said section provides for various matters which are to be provided in the Draft Development Plan. Clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Act reads as under: "(b) proposals for the reservation of land for public purposes, such as schools, colleges and other educational institutions, medical and public health institutions, markets, social welfare and cultural institutions, theatres and places for public entertainment, public assembly, museums, art galleries, religious buildings, play-grounds, stadia, open spaces, dairies and for such other purposes as may, from time to time, be specified by the State Government." (emphasis supplied) 11. The learned AGP submitted that the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-respondents herein that, 'respondent No. 1 has indulged in 'profiteering' by agreeing to give this land to one Raj Green Infrastructure Pvt Ltd,' is not correct. The land is not given free. The Company will be required to pay a sum of Rs. 4.61 crores on 'yearly' basis. This is sought to be branded as 'an action of profiteering' by Surat Municipal Corporation. The land is not given free. The Company will be required to pay a sum of Rs. 4.61 crores on 'yearly' basis. This is sought to be branded as 'an action of profiteering' by Surat Municipal Corporation. The learned AGP submitted that the 'public purposes' which are set out in clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Act like schools, colleges and other educational institutions, medical and public health institutions, markets, social welfare and cultural institutions, theatres and places for public entertainment, are also going to charge to carry on their activity. The learned AGP therefore, strenuously submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in holding that there is a breach of agreement entered into between Surat Municipal Corporation and the respondents-the original land owners. The learned senior advocate for Surat Municipal Corporation submitted that this amusement park will be established by the concerned company at its own cost and risk and the entire expenditure of putting up such high tech amusement park will be borne by that private company and Surat Municipal Corporation will be deriving a net income of Rs. 4.61 crores per year which will be used for providing 'CIVIC SERVICES', which Surat Municipal Corporation is under an obligation to provide under Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act ('BPMC Act' for brevity) 12. The learned AGP submitted that it is deliberately kept back and not highlighted to see that it is not taken note of that the area of Final Plot No.46 is more than the area of Final Plot No.50. The learned AGP submitted that if at all this is a breach of conditions of agreement, then it is favourable to the respondents-original land owners. That being so, it cannot be a basis for 'electing to avoid the agreement'. The learned AGP submitted that incidentally this Final Plot No.46 is located on a 60 meter wide road. It is also important to note that by change of Final Plot Number, viz. from Final Plot No.50 to Final Plot No.46, location is not changed. The change is only in 'number' and not in place (location). In such circumstances to contend and raise 'hue and cry' about breach of conditions of agreement is nothing but a calculated attempt to hamper the benevolent scheme of establishing a high tech amusement park. from Final Plot No.50 to Final Plot No.46, location is not changed. The change is only in 'number' and not in place (location). In such circumstances to contend and raise 'hue and cry' about breach of conditions of agreement is nothing but a calculated attempt to hamper the benevolent scheme of establishing a high tech amusement park. (emphasis supplied) The learned AGP submitted that it will not be out of place to mention here which is not controverted by the learned senior advocate for Surat Municipal Corporation that, 'the land given to establish high tech amusement park is only on lease basis and on expiry of the term of lease, the land will revert back to Surat Municipal Corporation with entire development undertaken by private company. (emphasis supplied) 13. Learned advocate Ms. Ketty A. Mehta appeared for respondents No. 1 to 7 - original owners of the land and contested the LPA with all vehemence at her command. The learned advocate submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed for the simple reason that there is a breach of statutory agreement which was entered into by Surat Municipal Corporation and the original land owners. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 20.08.2012 (Annexure 'G'), impugned notice dated 05.09.2012 (Annexure 'M') is just and proper and the LPA be dismissed upholding the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. The learned advocate for respondents No. 1 to 7 heavily relied upon para 20 of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned advocate re-read the paras which were already read by the learned AGP. In support of her contentions she relied upon the following judgments: (i) Judgment of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Dayarao and others v. State of U.P. And others, reported in A.I.R. 1961 SC 1457. The learned advocate relied upon Head Note 'C', which reads as under: "(c) Civil Procedure Code (1908) Section 11 - Rule of res judicata is not merely a technical rule but is based on public policy - Can be invoked against a petition under Article 32 of Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 32 and 226." (ii) Decision of this Court in the matter of Samji Shivji v. Devji Valji, reported in 2011 (4) GLR 3036 . The learned advocate invited attention of the Court to para 17, which reads as under: "Even otherwise, Explanation VIII added to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code by the amending Act of 1976 makes it now clear that if the Court, in the prior suit was competent to try the particular issue in question, the finding on that issue would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit even though the former Court was not competent to try the subsequent suit under the Code. Before its amendment by Act 104 of 1976, it was necessary that the Court trying the former suit should have been competent to try the whole of the subsequent suit itself and not a part of it or a material issue arising in it. Otherwise, the rule of res judicata under Section 11 would not apply. The Court is, therefore, of the view that when Section 11 is read in combination and harmony with Explanation VIII, the result that flows is that a decision on an issue heard and finally decided by a Court of Limit jurisdiction will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit notwithstanding the fact that such Court of Limit jurisdiction was not competent to try the subsequent suit." (iii) Decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Md. Noman & others v. Md. Jabed Alam & others, reported in 2010 A.I.R. SCW 5979. The learned advocate relied on par 17 of the judgment, which reads as under: "17. We have carefully examined the pleadings of the parties in the two suits and the evidences led by them in support of their respective claims regarding title in the two suits. And we are satisfied that the issue of title was expressly raised by the parties in the earlier eviction suit and it was expressly decided by the eviction court. The question of tile was directly and substantially in issue between the parties in the earlier suit for eviction. Hence the High Court was right in holding that the finding recorded in favour of the plaintiff in the earlier suit for eviction would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession between the parties." (iv) Decision of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Shyama Devi v. 7th Addl District Judge, Allahabad and another, reported in A.I.R. 1998 Allahabad 392. The learned advocate pressed into service the Head Note, which reads as under: "Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 11, Expln. 4 - Abuse of process of law - Constructive res judicata-issue involved in two earlier suits same as in instant suit-party filing three suits accepting decree in earlier two suits and allowed opportunity at his hand to be lost to contest by not filing appeal - He was estopped by principle of res judicata to reopen same issue in respect of same property between same parties-further opposite party, widow, kept on toes and tenterhook for 32 years by proceeding with matter in aforesaid manner-it is abuse of process of law." (v) Decision of this Court in the matter of Manubhai Devkaran Patel and others v. Alamsai Rajabsai Sai, reported in 2012 (3) GLH 678 . The learned advocate invited attention of the Court to paras 3.1, 5 and 5.1 (Part), which read as under: "[3.1] It is submitted by Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Appellate Court has materially erred in holding that the said issue is not barred by res judicata, by observing that the decision on the said issue in the earlier suit was in a suit under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the present suit is under the Bombay Rent Act. It is submitted by Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that whether the decision on the said issue was in suit under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or under the Bombay Rent Act was hardly material. It is submitted that what was required to be considered by the learned Appellate Court was decision by competent court on the said issue. Shri Patel, learned advocate has relied upon the Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in support of his above submissions. It is submitted that what was required to be considered by the learned Appellate Court was decision by competent court on the said issue. Shri Patel, learned advocate has relied upon the Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in support of his above submissions. xxx xxx xxx xxx [5.0] Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below as well as the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhanera in Civil Suit No.28 of 1975 by which the learned Civil Court decided the issue with respect to tenancy and held that the suit property was let to the partnership firm Ambica Machinery Works of which the original defendant No.3 is the partner. [5.1] At the outset it is required to be noted that the plaintiff had instituted the suit for recovery of the possession of the suit premises on the ground of subletting alleging inter-alia that the suit premises was let to defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their individual capacity and defendant Nos.1 and 2 have illegally inducted defendant No.3 and thereby have illegally sub-letted the suit premises to defendant No.3. ...." (vi) The learned advocate relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Bhikhubhai Vithalbhai Patel & others v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2008 (2) GLR 1531 . The learned advocate pressed into service paras 20, 21 and 22. These are the paras which are quoted by the learned Single Judge in para 25 of the judgment. In addition, the learned Single Judge has also quoted paras 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the same judgment, which are not reproduced to avoid repetition. (vii) The learned advocate for respondents No. 1 to 7 next relied upon a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Kishanbhai Hargovandas Patel & another v. State of Gujarat & others, reported in 2010 (4) GLR 2867. The learned advocate pressed into service paras 16 and 17. After reading paras 16 and 17, she relied upon para 20. In fact, in para 18 the facts of the case are set out which prima facie show that the said decision will have no application to the facts of the present case. The learned advocate pressed into service paras 16 and 17. After reading paras 16 and 17, she relied upon para 20. In fact, in para 18 the facts of the case are set out which prima facie show that the said decision will have no application to the facts of the present case. Besides, the contentions which are referred to in para 20 are negatived in para 21. Taking into consideration the same, this Court is of the opinion that the decision has no application to the facts of the present case. 14. The learned advocate for respondents No. 1 to 7 did mention yesterday, the 6th May 2014 that the compilation of SCA produced by the appellant-State of Gujarat is not complete. The learned advocate produced the compilation of certain annexures, but did not produce copies of affidavits which she relied upon and read part thereof without making available copy of such affidavit. This is only with a view to put it on record that when the learned advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 to 7 was going to rely upon certain documents, it was expected that copies of such documents are made available. Be that as it may. On a careful consideration of the submissions made and the decisions cited by the learned advocate for respondents No. 1 to 7 in support of her contentions, which this Court is of the opinion that are not applicable to the facts of the present case, because this Court is of the opinion that there is no substantial change and/or breach of conditions of the Statutory Agreement. Meaning thereby, 60% of the land is still going to be used for public purpose and that the original land owners are going to get something more than what they were to get under the agreement. In view of these facts this Court is of the opinion that the respondents have no case which is required to be accepted by this Court. As against that the LPA filed by the State of Gujarat, deserves to be allowed, the same is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. 15. As against that the LPA filed by the State of Gujarat, deserves to be allowed, the same is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. 15. At this juncture, the learned advocate for respondents requested that judgment and order passed by the Court be stayed at least for a period of eight weeks and interim relief granted by the Hon'ble the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.9533 of 2014 be continued for that period. The request is granted. The interim arrangement ordered by the Hon'ble the Apex Court directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the disputed property insofar as ownership and possession thereof is concerned, shall continue for 8 (eight) weeks hereafter. L.P.A. Allowed.