KAPILABEN AMBALAL PATEL & Ors. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
1.2 The earlier part of the writ petition deals with the factual background and assertion that the appellants still continue to be in physical possession of the stated land and was using it for agricultural purpose, as can be noticed from the Revenue record. Indeed, the Revenue record may have presumptive value, but that can be rebutted, which in this case has been done by the respondent-State by relying on the Possession Panchnama and the subsequent proceedings including the application submitted to the Mamlatdar, Baroda City in right earnest for entering the name of the State Government in the Revenue records, dated 11.4.1986, and pursuant to which entries had been effected on 26.9.1989 and 15.2.2000 respectively. Obviously, therefore, the appellants thought of the last attempt to assail the Possession Panchnama dated 20.3.1986 itself without seeking any further relief of declaration regarding the earlier proceedings which had attained finality. The Division Bench therefore, was right in concluding that the writ petition filed by the appellants after lapse of 14 years was hopelessly barred by delay and suffered from laches. The Court is in agreement with the said view taken by the High Court in the peculiar facts of the present case. Further, it is manifest from the acknowledgement produced by the respondent-State that the first notice under Section 10(5) issued to Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel was duly served on 26.12.1985. By the time second notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 23.1.1986, Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel had died (on 31.12.1985). A B C D E F G H 1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 8 S.C.R. The second notice was also issued to others, namely, Bhikhabhai Maganbhai Patel, son of deceased Maganbhai Parsottambhai Patel, Natvarbhai Bhailalbhai Patel, son of deceased Bhailalbhai Parsottambhai Patel and Jayantibhai Babarbhai Patel, son of deceased Babarbhai Parsottambhai Patel. [Paras 3, 15-18][1135- F-H; 1136-A-E] Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar v. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority & Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 718 : [2012] 2 SCR 219; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280 : [2013] 2 SCR 301; Gajanan Kamlya Patil v. Additional Collector and Competent Authority(ULC) & Ors. (2014) 12 SCC 523 : [2014] 1 SCR 1032; Mangalsen v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2014) 15 SCC 332; M/s. Avanti Organisation v. Competent Authority & Additional Collector, Urban Land Ceiling Act, Rajkot & Anr. AIR 1989 Guj 129; Samrathben Manilal Chokshi & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (1994) 35 (1) GLR 203; Savitaben Ramanbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (1999) 40(1) GLR 860; Darothi Clare Parreira (Smt.) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1996) 9 SCC 633 : [1996] 4 Suppl. SCR 46; SouthIndia Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Trivandrum & Anr. AIR 1964 SC 207 : [1964] SCR 280; Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad & Anr. v. P.S. Rao (2000) 2 SCC 451 : [2000] 1 SCR 257; Ramanlal Bhailal Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2008) 5 SCC 449 : [2008] 2 SCR 468; Har Pyari (Smt.) v. IInd Additional Judge, Moradabad & Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 525; State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors. (2015) 5 SCC 321 : [2014] 14 SCR 1451; Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 387 : [1998] 2 SCR 339; State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Gyanaba Dilavarsinh Jadega (2013) 11 SCC 486; Madhusudan Bhanuprasad Pandya v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2019) SCC Online SC 1050; Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat & Ors. (1976) 1 SCC 700; Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust v. A B C D E F G H KAPILABEN AMBALAL PATEL & ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 1121
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.