KALPANA JITENDRA JARIWALA & 22 Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY & ADDL COLLECTOR (CO-ORDINATION)(ULC) & 29
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Kalpana Jitendra Jariwala And 22
Competent Authority And Addl Collector (Co-Ordination)(Ulc) And 29
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) In this set of petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.06.2002 passed by the respondent no.1, whereby the respondent no.1 had directed the concerned authorities not to grant any development permission, NA permission or to register any saledeed in respect of the land in question, till the finalization of the criminal proceedings initiated against the original owners of the land in question.
(2.) The petitioners are claiming to be the owners and possessors of the subplots in the land bearing Revenue Survey No.89 paikee of village Piplod, Sub-District Choryasi(City), District: Surat, reconstituted as the Final Plot No.110 under the T.P. Scheme No.6 (Piplod), Surat Municipal Corporation. It appears that the competent authority and Additional Collector (ULC), Surat, had passed order dated 16.08.1996 declaring that the predecessors of the respondent nos. 3 to 29, who were the original owners of the lands in question, did not hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. The State Government having taken the said order into suomotu revision under Section 34 of the ULC Act, confirmed the said order passed by the competent authority. It appears that thereafter the Surat Municipal Corporation approved the layout plan of the land in question and granted permission to the original owners to subdivide the land vide the order dated 21.09.1999. The said original owners appear to have sold out the said subplots to the petitioners and others. It further transpires that the respondent no.1 subsequently having noticed the fraud committed by the original owners in the ULC proceedings, initiated criminal proceedings against them. The respondent no.1 thereafter passed the impugned order dated 13.06.2002, directing the concerned authorities not to grant any development permission, NA permission or to register any saledeed in respect of the land in question pending the said criminal proceedings.
(3.) The petitioners having challenged the said order by way of present petitions, this court vide the order dated 10.05.2005 stayed the said impugned order on the condition that the respondent nos. 27, 28 and 29, who are the Power of Attorney holders of the respondent nos. 3 to 26, shall deposit the full consideration of the saledeeds executed by them in respect of the land in question, with the District Collector, Surat. It was also directed that the amount that may be deposited by the respondent nos.27, 28 and 29 shall be subject to the finalization of the criminal prosecution in respect of the land in question, and if the prosecution was terminated or finalized, it would be open to the concerned parties i.e. respondent nos. 27, 28 and 29 and or the State Authority, as the case may be, to move this court for modification of the said order. It was clarified that the said impugned order shall not prejudice the case of either side in the criminal prosecution against the parties.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.