STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SURABHAI MAFATBHAI
LAWS(GJH)-1982-4-10
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on April 21,1982

STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
VERSUS
SURABHAI MAFATBHAI Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

PAMAN BHOPRAJMAL NAVLANI VS. DEPUTY MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER VADODARA [LAWS(GJH)-1997-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
COMPETENT OFFICER GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD VS. K B PARMAR [LAWS(GJH)-1991-4-33] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B.K.MEHTA - (1.)This appeal at the instance of the State Government is directed against the judgment and order of the City Civil Court Ahmedabad dated 27/02/1980 granting declaration that the notice for summary eviction issued by the City Deputy Collector Ahmedabad purporting to act under sec. 202 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) from the land of S. No.518 situated within the revenue limits of village Vadaj Ahmedabad Taluka admeasuring about acres 19-02 gunthas is bad in law and void inasmuch as sec. 202 of the Code being corresponding law stood repealed in light of the provisions contained in sec. 19 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Public Premises Act) which repealed not only the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act 1955 but also any other corresponding law for eviction of occupants from the public premises. In order to appreciate the rival contentions in the proper perspective it is necessary to refer shortly to the pleadings of the parties hereto.
(2.)The plaintiff claims that according to the rules and regulations of the State Government a policy was evolved to grant lands to aggriculturists who are in cultivation thereof for continuous period of three years on recovery of the occupancy price. Since the plaintiff was cultivating the land of S. No. 518 situate within the revenue limits of village Vadaj of Ahmedabad taluka he has become the owner thereof and nether the State Government nor its agents officers or servants were entitled to interfere with his possession or to cause any obstruction or restrain him from enjoyment thereof. The land in question was originally a waste land and was not fit for cultivation since it was of uneven level. The State Government had given the said land to the plaintiff before a considerable number of years and since then it is in his possession and cultivation. We spent a considerable amount in making it fit for cultivation and recently he has sown in the field after cultivating the same. The City Deputy Collector by his notice served on the plaintiff on 5/06/1976 called upon him to hand over the vacant possession of the land within thirty days of the receipt of the said notice since he was not authorised to hold the same and his possession thereof was unauthorised. The City Deputy Collector was therefore entitled to summarily evict him in exercise of his powers under sec. 202 of the Code and he was therefore called upon to hand over the possession as stated above. In submission of the plaintiff the said notice was bad in law ultra vires and therefore null and void inasmuch as it was without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice. The plaintiff therefore served a statutory notice as required by sec. 30 of the Civil Procedure Code dated 23/06/1976 which has been served on the Government on 24/07/1976 and since the Government failed to comply with the demand made in the notice the plaintiff filed the suit in the City Civil Court Ahmedabad by his Civil Suit No. 2749 of 1976 praying for a declaration and permanent injunction as stated above.
(3.)The State Government resisted the suit contending inter alia that sec. No. 518 is admeasuring in all acres 72-27gunthas and is shown in the revenue record as waste and Gauchar land. The State Government joined issue with the plaintiff thAt there was no laid down policy to grant waste land to agriculturists who are claiming to cultivate the land or about the grant of the said land or any part thereof to the plaintiff or that the plaintiff bad hen put in possession since many years and/or that he was cultivating the said land as alleged by him. According to the State Government the plaintiff had entered upon the said land unauthorisedly and illegally and therefore in exercise of the powers under sec. 202 of the Code the City Deputy Collector has proceeded to evict the plaintiff who was wrongfully in possession of the Government land. On these pleadings the learned City Civil Judge raised the necessary issues.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.