BHARATBHAI GULABRAI PARWANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Bharatbhai Gulabrai Parwani
State of Gujarat and 1 and Anr.
Click here to view full judgement.
A.G. Uraizee, J. -
(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed against the order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in the captioned petition. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the competent authority under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 issued the order dated 16.12.1974 for taking possession and thereafter, passed the order of allotment in favour of the Grandfather of appellants on 19.05.1977. After handing over the possession, the competent authority issued Sanad as per Rule -68 in favour of the Grandfather of appellants on 21.06.1977. It was submitted that the learned single Judge did not appreciate the fact that such allotment could not have been challenged before any authority. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
1.1 Learned counsel drew our attention to the observations made by this Court while disposing of Second Appeal No. 346/1974 on 14.04.1978, as under;
However, the learned District Judge was right when he held that principles of natural justice were violated when without hearing the plaintiff and trying to find out what her rights in respect of the suit land were an order was passed allocating the land to defendant no. 4 which by virtue of Rule 58 set out above would have the direct consequence of taking away possessions of the suit land from her. Since this consequence was to follow, principles of natural justice required that a notice should be issued to her, her case should be heard and thereafter the order of allotment to defendant no. 4 should have been passed. Under these circumstances, the learned District Judge was right when he held that as the order dated June 4, 1970 was passed without hearing the plaintiff and without trying to ascertain what her rights to the suit land were, that order was violative of principles of natural justice and he, therefore, rightly struck down that order. Once the order dated June 4, 1970 is struck down, it logically follows that the notice dated June 6, 1970 was also bad. Under these circumstances, for reasons slightly different from the reasons which appealed to the learned District Judge, I confirm his conclusion that the order dated June 4, 1970 and the notice dated June 6, 1970 were both illegal and void. He, therefore, was right in passing the judgment and decree that he did.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that considering the observations made by this Court in its order passed in S.C.A. No. 7442/1988 dated 20.04.2000, the learned single Judge was justified in dismissing the petition. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. While deciding Second Appeal No. 346/1974 vide judgment and order dated 14.04.1978, this Court believed that respondent no. 2 herein, original plaintiff in R.C.S. No. 295/1970, was in possession of the suit land bearing Survey No. 271/A/2, ad measuring 25 gunthas, situated in Zalod Town of Panchmahals District. The said suit was decreed in favour of respondent no. 2 herein, by judgment and order dated 31.07.1974 passed by the District Judge, Panchmahals in Regular Civil Appeal No. 75/1972.
(3.) IN pursuance of the order of remand passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7442/1988 dated 20.04.2000, the Secretary passed a fresh order whereby, he confirmed the order of the District Collector and rejected the Revision Application filed by the appellant, original petitioner. The authority found that respondent no. 2 was in possession of the suit property from the beginning and that she continued to be in possession thereof until then.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.