Buyer Was Never Given A Proper Hearing : SC Remands Land 'Fragmentation' Dispute To Prant Officer
The Supreme Court remanded a land dispute under the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (Act) back to the Prant Officer, emphasizing the importance of granting a fair opportunity of hearing to the buyer.
A land dispute arose when the buyer bought a share of an ancestral property. Other descendants challenged the sale before the Prant Officer, who invalidated the sale. The buyer then filed several appeals, all of which were dismissed. However, he later claimed that the address used on all appeals was incorrect and he never received any notice from the Prant Officer.
The Bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, “The parties would be in a position to adduce proper evidence in support of their respective cases only if they are given opportunity to do so before the original authority, viz., the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar… Further, having purchased the land in the year 2007 after parting with valuable consideration, the appellant cannot be condemned without providing him a full opportunity to put forth his case with supporting evidence”.
Advocate Abhinav Agrawal appeared for the Appellant and Senior Advocate Percy Kavina appeared for the Respondent.
The Appellant approached the Apex Court challenging the order of the High Court, against orders declaring his land purchase as a violation of the Act. The disputed land, originally owned by Shankarbhai Dungardas, was inherited by his three sons. The Appellant asserted that the land was partitioned, and he obtained a portion through a sale agreement with Respondent Nos. 10 to 19. However, the Prant Officer ruled the transaction illegal, leading to eviction orders.
A revision was initiated under Section 35 before the State Government. On the contrary, the Appellant contended that he never filed a revision. However, the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Government of Gujarat dismissed the revision. Per the Appellant, he was unaware of the revision and therefore filed another revision. The Second Revision was also dismissed citing the principle of res judicata. The Appellant then approached the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but it was also dismissed. The High Court dismissed a letters patent appeal filed by the Appellant.
The Court noted that per the Appellant’s claims, his address on the order of the Prant Officer was 'B/51, Sanskar Society, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad - 380004.' Subsequently, the first revision filed by the Appellant against this order also indicated the same address. Despite the Appellant's assertion that he did not reside at that address, the revision filed in 2018 reiterated the same information. In a surprising turn, the appellant filed a criminal complaint, alleging impersonation in the submission of the initial revision. No action was taken on this complaint due to ongoing litigation. The Appellant contended that his true address is 'B/9, Sadbhav Bungalow, opposite Om Tower, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad – 380004.' Although the address mentioned in the 2012 order was repeated in the 2018 revision, the appellant did not raise the issue of his correct address while asserting that he had not been served with any notice.
The Court observed that per Section 31(2) of the Act, the term 'fragment,' as defined by Section 2(4), refers to a plot of land with a smaller extent than the standard area determined under the Act. Specifically, for irrigated land, a 'fragment' is considered to be less than Ac 0.20 Guntas.
Despite the Appellant's inadequate presentation of his case, the Bench noted that he was not granted a proper hearing on the merits by the authorities. The initial order did not involve a full hearing, and no opportunity for a hearing was given to the Appellant. The controversy regarding the correct address of the Appellant is deemed irrelevant, as the undeniable fact is that he was not afforded a comprehensive hearing on the merits by either the original or revisional authorities.
The Court also noted that the examination of whether the land sold to the appellant qualifies as a 'fragment' under Section 31(1)(b) of the Act, especially in terms of being irrigated or dry land, was not thoroughly explored.
Additionally, the Court noted that the reduction of the sale consideration from ₹17,51,000 to ₹1,07,000 in the Appellant's documents raises questions. The appellant contends that this reduction was for registration charge purposes, and this issue required examination.
The Court concluded that the Appellant, having purchased the land in 2007 and having invested valuable consideration, should not be condemned without a fair opportunity to present his case with supporting evidence.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
Cause Title: Kanaiyalal Mafatlal Patel v The State of Gujarat and others (2023 INSC 1052)
Appearance:
Respondent: Advocates Archana Pathak Dave, Deepanwita Priyanka, Harivadan Mishra, Ashok Parmar, C. George Thomas, Chand Qureshi, Harivadan Mishra, Vijay Kumar
