Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1727 (GUJ)

Arvindbhai Manibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2017-10-05

M.R.SHAH, VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2017
ORDER : M.R SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1203 of 2008 dated 24.03.2017, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act. 2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the land in question was declared as excess under the provisions of the Gujarat Urban Land Ceiling Act. According to the respondents, State Government had taken over possession of the excess land in the year 1987. In the year 1996, even the mutation entry was also made in the revenue record, by which the name of the Government was mutated in the revenue record. That, thereafter, in the year 1999, Urban Land Ceiling Act came to be repealed. Thereafter, in the year 2007, the petitioner approached the appropriate authority to grant No Objection Certificate(NOC) and to delete the name of the Government from the revenue record. The same came to be rejected by the appropriate authority, which came to be challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, by impugned order, has dismissed the said petition, which has been given rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Shri. N.K Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that as such, the appellant was in possession of the land in question and only the paper possession was taken, and therefore, considering the provisions of repealed Urban Land Ceiling Act, all the proceedings would abate, and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have granted the reliefs; as prayed for. 4. However, it is required to be noted and as observed above, as such the land in question was already declared excess vacant land under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The possession was taken over in the year 1987 and even the name of the Government was mutated in the revenue record in the year 1996. At no point of time, the petitioner raised any grievance that the actual possession is not taken over. On the contrary, the village Form No. 7/12 suggests that after 1991-1992, the said land is shown as Padtar (without cultivation). At no point of time, the petitioner raised any grievance that the actual possession is not taken over. On the contrary, the village Form No. 7/12 suggests that after 1991-1992, the said land is shown as Padtar (without cultivation). No evidence whatsoever is produced by the petitioner to show that the appellant has continued in possession of the land in question. On the contrary, in the register maintained by the Government showing the possession taken over, there is a reference about the land in question. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and when the first time, the grievance was made in the year 2007 and that too, to delete the name of the Government from the revenue records and grant No Objection Certificate, and when same came to be rejected by the competent authority and same has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge, it cannot be said that learned Single Judge has committed any error. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of intra Court appellate jurisdiction. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.