JUDGMENT
Abhilasha Kumari, J.
1. Rule. Mr. Pathik Acharya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and finally decided today.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the purchasers of the land in question, with the following prayers:
(A) That the communication dated 27th February 2008 (Annexure `G’ to the petition) issued by the Competent Authority & Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Surat be declared as illegal, bad in law and necessary direction to issue No Objection Certificate pertaining to the land of Revenue Survey No. 490/P, New Revenue Survey No. 299/3 of Village Vesu for the purpose of conversion of the land for Non-agricultural use be issued as proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act have abated.
(B) That pending admission hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the Competent Authority & Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Surat be directed to give reply to the letter of the Collector, Surat dated 20th June 2007 pertaining to the No Objection Certificate for the purpose of conversion of land of Revenue Survey No. 490/P, New Revenue Survey No. 299/1 and he be further directed to give his opinion/ No Objection Certificate on the basis of the relevant provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling (Repeal) Act, under which the proceedings before the Urban Land Ceiling authorities have already abated.
3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is that the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 299/3 of Village Vesu, District: Surat (the land in question) was purchased by the petitioners from Shri Gokulbhai Samubhai Lalbhai vide registered Sale Deed dated 23.4.2001. It is the case of the petitioners that they are bona fide purchasers for value of the land in question, which is not covered by any provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and has become free land belonging to its owners under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (“Repeal Act” for short). It is averred in the petition, that after the excess lands were declared in the hands of the original owner, proceedings under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, were undertaken and the possession of the land in question was not taken over from the original owner. It appears from the record, that a police complaint was lodged against the original owner regarding production of a forged and fabricated birth-certificate on the basis of which, it was alleged that a unit of 1500 Sq.Mtrs. of land was wrongly allotted to the original owner. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed that the communication dated 27th February, 2008, whereby issuance of No Objection Certificate pertaining to the land in question to the petitioners has been refused, be quashed and set aside, as the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, have now abated, pursuant to the coming into force of the Repeal Act.
4. I have heard Mrs. Ketty A. Mehta, learned Counsel with Mr. Jigar P. Raval, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pathik Acharya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents and have perused the averments made in the petition as well as the documents on record.
5. Mrs. Ketty A. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged forged and fabricated birth-certificate and since they are bona fide purchasers for value, the proceedings which may be pending against the original owner have no bearing upon the development on the land in question by the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has brought to my notice, the orders passed by this Court in similar matters i.e. order dated 11.10.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No. 20755 of 2006 and allied matters, order dated 25.7.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No. 13233 and 13235 of 2006 and allied matters, as well as order dated 10.5.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No. 16581 of 2004 and allied matters, and has submitted that since this matter is similar to the matters in which the above orders have been passed, a similar order can be passed in this petition as well.
6. Mr. Pathik Acharya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that he has no objection if a similar order is passed in the petition. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has, however, submitted that the revised Jantri has come into effect from 1.4.2008 and, therefore, the petitioners may be directed to deposit the excess amount as per the price reflected in the Jantri, if necessary, within a stipulated period. The amount to be paid shall be conveyed to the petitioners by the Competent Authority, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
7. From a perusal of the orders dated 10.5.2005 and 11.10.2006 passed by this Court (Coram: Jayant Patel, J.) in Special Civil Application No. 16581 of 2004 and allied matters and Special Civil Application No. 20755 of 2006 and allied matters respectively, it appears that the Court has considered a similar question regarding the sale of lands, earlier covered by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, wherein subsequent criminal prosecution against the original owner was undertaken and the right of the purchaser to develop his land as a bona fide purchaser for value was in issue. The facts obtaining in the present petition are also similar. The relevant extract contained in paragraph-5 of the order dated 10.5.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No. 16581 of 2004 reads as under:
5. Prima facie it appears that even as per the respondent ULC Authority it is not the stand that the sale transaction was by way of collusion or with a view to defeat the interest of the State Government. It also appears that if the petitioners have bonafide relied upon the order of the ULC Authority and also the order of the State Government for clearing the land from ULC Act and have purchased the land by paying the consideration, that too under the registered sale deed, such a transaction prima facie can be said as bonafide in the eye of law unless it is so demonstrated before the competent authority or forum that the petitioners are not bonafide purchasers. It also prima facie appears that even if there was a fraud, the persons who can be made directly responsible for the fraud, would not be the petitioners who are purchasers as third party, but at the most it may be related to those who produced the bogus certificates and those who accepted such certificates and those who took the benefit of the same and up till now it prima facie appears that the petitioners were not in picture until the land was cleared under the ULC Act. Further, in any case, it was expected for the officers of the ULC Department to take appropriate action within some reasonable time at least prior to the disposal of the land if the action was to be taken against the purchaser of the property. Prima facie it appears that the sale made has created the rights of the bonafide purchasers of the property may be because of the so-called mis-deed of the holder of the land and may be also in collusion with the concerned officer of the ULC Department.
8. Mrs. Ketty A. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners are agreeable to depositing the necessary amount towards 1500 Sq.Mtrs. of land on the basis of the price mentioned in the Sale Deed, which comes to an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only), within a period of two weeks from today.
9. As is apparent from the averments made in the petition and the documents annexed thereto, the petitioners are bona fide purchasers for value and since they are ready and willing to pay the amount of sale consideration for 1500 Sq.Mtrs. of land, allegedly taken into calculation on the basis of the bogus birth-certificate produced by the original owner, the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners deserve to be accepted.
10. Accordingly, it is directed that:
(A) The communication dated 27.2.2008 (Annexure-G to the petition) issued by the Competent Authority and Additional Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Surat, is set aside on the condition that the petitioners will deposit an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) with the District Collector, Surat, within a period of two weeks from today. Upon such deposit, the Competent Authority and Additional Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Surat, will give a No Objection Certificate, in reply to the letter of the Collector dated 20.6.2007, regarding permission for Non Agricultural use of the land by the petitioners.
(B) It is further directed that upon receipt of the communication from the Competent Authority regarding the payment of the difference in price, according to the new rates reflected in the prevalent Jantri which has come into effect from 1.4.2008, the petitioners will make the deposit of the balance amount, if found necessary, within a period of four weeks from the date of such communication of the Competent Authority.
(C) It is also directed that the total amount which may be deposited by the petitioners shall be subject to the final outcome of the prosecution in respect of the land in question, against the original owner.
(D) After the disposal of the criminal proceedings, it would be open to the respective parties to move the Court for appropriate orders, if necessary.
(E) Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as touching upon the merits of the case and shall not have any bearing upon the criminal proceedings, which are pending against the original owner.
11. The petition is disposed of with the above directions. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. There shall be no orders as to costs.