{"id":259941,"date":"2006-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006"},"modified":"2017-10-17T13:06:01","modified_gmt":"2017-10-17T07:36:01","slug":"kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"Kansing Kalusing Thakore And Ors vs Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai And &#8230; on 20 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kansing Kalusing Thakore And Ors vs Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai And &#8230; on 20 November, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . A Lakshmanan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Altamas Kabir<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5089 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nKansing Kalusing Thakore and Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai and Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/11\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nDr. AR. Lakshmanan &amp; Altamas Kabir\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 124-125\/2006)<\/p>\n<p>Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">This is a Public Interest Litigation (in short &#8216;PIL&#8217;) by the<br \/>\nvillagers of Rasana Nana in Gujarat.  The appellants 1-6, who<br \/>\nare the respondents in the public interest litigations before the<br \/>\nHigh Court, are the appellants in these appeals who also<br \/>\nbelong to the same village.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">In this PIL, the following question of law of great public<br \/>\nimportance arise for consideration of this Court which is,<br \/>\n&#8220;whether the High Court failed to appreciate that the process<br \/>\nfor rehabilitation was under a policy decision of the<br \/>\nGovernment of Gujarat and the lands being allotted to the<br \/>\nappellants as an administrative act, which allotments was in<br \/>\nlieu of the lands of the appellants acquired by the Government<br \/>\ndecades earlier, the judicial interference in the decision<br \/>\nmaking process and policy of the Government not warranted<br \/>\nin the facts of the case.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">The appellants&#8217; lands were acquired by the State<br \/>\nGovernment in the year 1954.  This was in terms of Section 8<br \/>\nof the Bombay Merged Territory and Areas (Jagir Abolition Act)<br \/>\nof 1953.  The reason for the acquirement of the lands of the<br \/>\nappellants by the State Government was for the establishment<br \/>\nof the Dantiwada Agricultural University.  As per the<br \/>\nGovernment Policy, lands of such persons affected by the take<br \/>\nover, allotment and\/or reservation of separate land had been<br \/>\nmade by the competent authority in the adjacent villages,<br \/>\nincluding village Rasana Nana.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">The appellants herein are challenging only that part of<br \/>\nthe impugned order which affects their absolute right over the<br \/>\nland given to them in lieu of their land which was surrendered<br \/>\nby them for the purpose of establishment of the Agricultural<br \/>\nUniversity.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">Land in survey Nos. 125 and 126 in village Rasna Nana<br \/>\nthough earmarked for rehabilitation was however not handed<br \/>\nover to the persons affected by the take over of the lands for<br \/>\nthe purpose of establishment of the University.  Several<br \/>\ncorrespondences were made to the competent authority but for<br \/>\none reason or another, the land in the said survey nos. could<br \/>\nnot be handed over.  In the year 2003, some of the appellants<br \/>\napproached the High Court through 3 separate applications<br \/>\ncontending that although most of the persons affected had<br \/>\nbeen given lands as per Government allotment policy dated<br \/>\n18.07.1973 and 11.02.1997 the appellants had been subjected<br \/>\nto inequitable treatment.  Three orders on different dates, i.e.<br \/>\non 20.09.2003, 14.10.2003 and 26.04.2004 were passed in<br \/>\nthe aforesaid 3 applications by the High Court.  Directions<br \/>\nwere given to the competent authorities to consider and<br \/>\nexamine the case of each appellant and to take appropriate<br \/>\ndecision thereafter in terms of the policy framed by the State<br \/>\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">On 09.08.2004, the Deputy Collector passed 3 separate<br \/>\norders.  He verified individual cases and took a final decision<br \/>\nafter consultation with the Collector whereby the reserved<br \/>\nlands at survey Nos. 125 and 126 of village Rasana Nana were<br \/>\ndirected to be granted over to the appellants who also paid the<br \/>\noccupancy price subsequently.  It is stated that the order of<br \/>\nthe Deputy Collector was in furtherance of the policy decision<br \/>\nof the State and was part of an <a href=\"\/doc\/195735\/\" id=\"a_1\">Administrative Act<\/a>.  The<br \/>\nappellants&#8217; claims were based upon the principles of legitimate<br \/>\nexpectation and the reliefs claimed by them were equitable in<br \/>\nnature.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">In October, 2004, five persons of the said village filed a<br \/>\npetition before the High Court purportedly under public<br \/>\ninterest.  They claimed themselves to be &#8220;public spirited<br \/>\nindividuals&#8221;.  In this petition, the challenge was to the 3 orders<br \/>\npassed by the Deputy Collector allotting land from survey Nos.<br \/>\n125 and 126 of Village Rasana Nana and no challenge was<br \/>\nmade to the other allotments of the said village.  It was<br \/>\ncontended that the lands allocated by this order was reserved<br \/>\nfor grazing of cattle i.e. Gauchar lands the<br \/>\nallotment\/settlement of which would affect the breeding of<br \/>\ncattle in the village, such lands also serve as the water needs<br \/>\nof the village.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">The appellants were deliberately not made parties in the<br \/>\nwrit petitions filed allegedly in public interest.  According to<br \/>\nthe appellants, the petitioners in the alleged PIL are people<br \/>\nholding clout in the village Rasana Nana and who were all<br \/>\nalong enjoying illegal possession of the lands contained in<br \/>\nsurvey Nos. 125 and 126.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">In December, 2004, an application was filed by the<br \/>\npresent appellants before the High Court and impleaded as<br \/>\nrespondents in the alleged PIL.  This application was allowed<br \/>\nby the High Court.  The Sarpanch of the village filed an<br \/>\naffidavit-in-reply opposing the relief prayed for in the writ<br \/>\npetition.  It was stated that the lands in survey Nos. 125 and<br \/>\n126 were deemed to be Government lands w.e.f. 01.08.1954<br \/>\nand were never Gauchar lands or vested in the Panchayat<br \/>\nbody.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">The appellants herein also filed an affidavit in reply<br \/>\ncontending that:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">a)\tThere had been no violation of legal rights so as to<br \/>\nmaintain a petition under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a> of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">b)\tThe petitioners in the alleged PIL had made false<br \/>\nstatements in as much as they were headstrong<br \/>\npersons of the village having political clout.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">c)\tThe petitioners in the PIL had suppressed material<br \/>\nfacts including resolutions taken by Panchayat<br \/>\nAuthority.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">d)\tThe petitioners in the PIL had acted with malafide<br \/>\nintentions by not making necessary and appropriate<br \/>\nparties.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\"> By virtue of the impugned order dated 04.08.2005, the<br \/>\nHigh Court arrived at a conclusion that there was hardly any<br \/>\nmaterial to indicate that the land in question was pasture land<br \/>\nand that such land was in fact reserved for the rehabilitation<br \/>\nof persons who were adversely affected by the acquisition of<br \/>\ntheir lands for the establishment of the agricultural university<br \/>\nand that the appellants herein had an existing right in terms<br \/>\nof the Government policy and hence entitled to equitable relief.<br \/>\nThe High Court did not find any infirmity in the order of<br \/>\nthe Deputy Collector dated 09.08.2004.  However, an<br \/>\nargument was advanced on behalf of the public interest<br \/>\nlitigants contending that the grantees i.e. the appellants<br \/>\nherein would not use the land for agricultural purposes and<br \/>\nwould sell it away.  The High Court imposed the following<br \/>\nconditions:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">I.\tThe respondent Nos. 4 to 53 will not convert the<br \/>\nland into N.A.   But they will use the land only for<br \/>\nagricultural purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">II.\tThe respondent Nos.4 to 53 shall not transfer the<br \/>\nland either by sale or in any other manner directly<br \/>\nor indirectly by executing power of attorney, to any<br \/>\nother party and even if such power of attorney is<br \/>\nalready given in favour of the third party, the<br \/>\nconcerned respondents shall revoke the same before<br \/>\nreceiving the possession.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">The aforesaid conditions imposed by the High Court will<br \/>\nremain in force for a period of 15 years from the date of<br \/>\npossession of the land.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">The Deputy Collector, Palanpur was directed to see that<br \/>\nthese respondents give undertaking in writing to comply with<br \/>\nthe aforesaid conditions imposed by the High Court.  Unless<br \/>\nsuch undertaking is given, the possession shall not be granted<br \/>\nto such respondents.  The Deputy Collector was further<br \/>\ndirected to ensure before giving possession of land that no<br \/>\nneed of Power of Attorney to be executed by any of the<br \/>\nrespondents in favour of any other party.  If it is found to be<br \/>\nso, he shall forthwith call upon the said respondent to revoke<br \/>\nit and render it ineffective.  He is further directed that unless<br \/>\nthere is strict compliance of the aforesaid terms and<br \/>\nconditions by the said respondents, he shall not put them into<br \/>\npossession of the land in question.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">The High Court, thereafter, directed the Deputy Collector<br \/>\nto give possession to the appellants only after taking written<br \/>\nundertakings of compliance of the aforesaid conditions.  It is<br \/>\nthis portion of the order which the appellants have challenged.<br \/>\nThe appellants preferred a revision petition before the<br \/>\nHigh Court which, on 11.10.2005, was also dismissed.<br \/>\nAggrieved by the orders passed by the High Court, the<br \/>\nappellants have preferred the above civil appeals.<br \/>\nWe heard Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the<br \/>\nappellants and Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Mr. Rajiv Mehta and Mr.<br \/>\nGaurav Agarwal assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respective respondents.<br \/>\n  We have perused the resolution passed by the<br \/>\nGovernment of Gujarat dated 18.07.1973, 11.02.1997 and the<br \/>\nPIL filed by the respondents herein and the counter affidavit<br \/>\nand reply filed by the respective parties and also the various<br \/>\norders passed by the High Court of Gujarat including the<br \/>\njudgment in appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel took us through<br \/>\nthe relevant pleadings and also the judgments and other<br \/>\nrecords.  He contended that the High Court was not correct in<br \/>\nits approach of imposing further conditions once it was evident<br \/>\nthat the lands to be allotted to the appellants was not pasture<br \/>\nlands and reserved for allotment in terms of the Government<br \/>\npolicy.  He further contended that the conditions imposed by<br \/>\nthe High Court was not within the ambit and scope of the PIL<br \/>\nmore particularly when the maintainability of the PIL was in<br \/>\nissue and not decided.  It was further urged that the<br \/>\nappellants who were being allotted lands after about 30 years<br \/>\nsuffered inequity by imposition of such conditions by the High<br \/>\nCourt inasmuch as many persons (whose lands had also been<br \/>\ntaken and who were given\/allotted lands decades earlier) were<br \/>\nalso subjected to such restrictions and conditions.  He also<br \/>\nsubmitted that the High Court was not correct in imposing a<br \/>\n15 year ban\/restriction upon the appellants without any<br \/>\nrationale, reason and without any material on record.<br \/>\nAccording to Mr. Lalit, the stringent conditions imposed by the<br \/>\nHigh Court are not sustainable in law inasmuch as the same<br \/>\namounts to judicial interference in purely administrative acts<br \/>\nwhere there is no involvement of any malafide and allocations<br \/>\nsought to be made are only in lieu of lands acquired earlier by<br \/>\nthe Government, in furtherance of a policy decision aiming for<br \/>\nrehabilitation.  Arguing further, Mr. Lalit submitted that the<br \/>\nHigh Court was also not correct in appreciating the fact that<br \/>\nthe only restriction in transferring the land was provided for in<br \/>\nSection 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act<br \/>\nand such restricted tenure land can also be transferred after<br \/>\nobtaining permission from the Collector under the Bombay<br \/>\nLand Revenue Code.  In the instant case, by adding these two<br \/>\nconditions, entire transfer to the appellants was given a<br \/>\ndiscriminatory treatment.  Concluding his argument, Mr. Lalit<br \/>\nsubmitted that the High Court was not right in presuming<br \/>\nwithout any material that the appellants\/allottees will sell<br \/>\ntheir land to the builders for constructing commercial<br \/>\ncomplex.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\">Learned counsel appearing for the State and for the<br \/>\nSarpanch invited our attention to the counter affidavit filed in<br \/>\nthe writ petition.  The Deputy Collector stated that the<br \/>\npetitioners in the PIL had personal interest involved and they<br \/>\nwere actually encroachers and had been removed therefrom<br \/>\nand that the process of rehabilitation was a policy decision<br \/>\nand that the public interest litigants does not deserve any<br \/>\nrelief in the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_24\">The Sarpanch of Village Rasana Nana filed an affidavit in<br \/>\nreply opposing the relief prayed for in the writ petition.  It was<br \/>\nstated that the lands in survey Nos. 125 and 126 were deemed<br \/>\nto be Government lands w.e.f 01.08.1954 and were never<br \/>\ngauchar lands and are vested in the Panchayat body.  It was<br \/>\nfurther submitted that after receipt of the notice from the High<br \/>\nCourt, the same was placed before the Panchayat in its<br \/>\nmeeting dated 16.02.2005 and the Panchayat after detailed<br \/>\ndeliberation and careful consideration taken the decision by<br \/>\nresolving that the Panchayat had no objection in the land<br \/>\nbeing granted to the ousted persons on account of setting up<br \/>\nof Agricultural University.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_25\">Two panchnamas were made in furtherance of orders<br \/>\nmade by the Circle Officer and Surveyor of the Survey<br \/>\nDepartment.  It is recorded that all encroachments in the<br \/>\nlands sought to be granted were unauthorized and possession<br \/>\nwas recovered.  Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned counsel for the<br \/>\ncontesting respondent, after reiterating the contentions raised<br \/>\nin the writ petition, submitted that a) the lands allocated by<br \/>\norder dated 09.08.2004 was not available for any purpose<br \/>\nother than to fulfill the water needs for the population of the<br \/>\nvillage b) lands so allotted were reserved for grazing i.e.<br \/>\ngauchar land (pasture) and c) land allocated vide order dated<br \/>\n09.08.2004 would affect cattle breeding.<br \/>\nWe have given our careful consideration for the rival<br \/>\nsubmissions made by the respective counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nrespective parties.  The writ petition filed by the respondents<br \/>\nherein is an abuse of the process of the Court.  By this PIL, the<br \/>\nrespondents sought to ventilate\/redress their personal<br \/>\ngrievances inasmuch as they are able to holding clout in<br \/>\nVillage Rasana Nana and were enjoying illegal possession in<br \/>\nseveral lands contained under said survey Nos. 125 and 126.<br \/>\nThe appellants herein were deliberately not made parties to<br \/>\nthe writ petition allegedly filed in public interest.  It is a matter<br \/>\nof record that the writ petitioners are the people who<br \/>\nencroached upon the land sought to be granted to the<br \/>\nappellants herein and hence having no legal right to continue<br \/>\ntheir illegal occupancy, devised means to approach the High<br \/>\nCourt in alleged public interest.  This would be evident from<br \/>\nthe affidavit of the Deputy Collector filed on 24.03. 2005.  The<br \/>\nmaintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the<br \/>\nrespondents was specifically raised before the High Court.<br \/>\nThe maintainability of the PIL which was in issue was<br \/>\nunfortunately not decided by the High Court.  The High Court,<br \/>\nin our opinion, ought to have decided the maintainability of<br \/>\nthe PIL maintained at the instance of the encroachers and<br \/>\nland grabbers and rejected the writ petitions at the threshold.<br \/>\nThis Court in a catena of decisions held that only a person<br \/>\nacting bonafide and having sufficient interest in the<br \/>\nproceeding of PIL will alone have locus standi and can<br \/>\napproach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and<br \/>\nneedy suffering from violation of their fundamental rights but<br \/>\nnot a person for personal gain or private profit or political or<br \/>\nany oblique consideration.  The High Court ought to have<br \/>\nrejected the writ petition at the threshold as observed by this<br \/>\ncourt in (1992) 4 SCC 305 <a href=\"\/doc\/1830927\/\" id=\"a_2\">Janta Dal vs. H.S. Chaudhary &amp;<br \/>\nOrs.  In<\/a> our opinion, the writ petition filed by the respondents<br \/>\nwas not aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public<br \/>\ninjury but founded on personal vendetta.  It is the duty of the<br \/>\nHigh Court not to allow such process to be abused for oblique<br \/>\nconsiderations and the petitions filed by such busy bodies<br \/>\ndeserves to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold and in<br \/>\nappropriate cases with exemplary costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_26\">Even on merits, the respondents have absolutely no case.<br \/>\nThe records filed in this case clearly go to show that there had<br \/>\nbeen no violation of legal rights so as to maintain a petition<br \/>\nunder <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_3\">Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India.  The petitioners<br \/>\nin the PIL had suppressed material facts including resolutions<br \/>\ntaken by bona fide authority and acted with malafide<br \/>\nintentions by not making necessary and appropriate parties.<br \/>\nWe have already reproduced the conditions\/restrictions<br \/>\nimposed by the High Court against the appellants herein.  In<br \/>\nthe instant case, the appellants lands were acquired by the<br \/>\nState Government in the year 1954 and as per the government<br \/>\npolicy, lands of such persons affected by the take over<br \/>\nallotment and\/or reservation of separate land had been made<br \/>\nby the competent authority in the adjacent villages.  It is also<br \/>\nevident that the lands to be allotted to the appellants was not<br \/>\npasture land and reserved for allotment in terms of<br \/>\ngovernment policy and that the appellants were allotted lands<br \/>\nafter about 30 years.  Under such circumstances, the<br \/>\nappellants are the ones who have suffered inequity for 30<br \/>\nyears.  The Court is not justified by the imposition of such<br \/>\nstringent conditions and, in particular, imposing a 15 year<br \/>\nban upon the appellants without any rationale, reason and<br \/>\nwithout any material on record.  The stringent conditions<br \/>\nimposed by the High Court are not sustainable in law and<br \/>\ninasmuch as the same amounts to judicial interference in<br \/>\npurely administrative acts when the allegation sought to be<br \/>\nmade are only in lieu of lands acquired earlier by the<br \/>\nGovernment in furtherance of a policy decision aiming for<br \/>\nrehabilitation.  By imposing such conditions, the High Court<br \/>\nhas jeopardized the rights of the appellants who have been<br \/>\ndisplaced and suffering for more than 3 decades.  The High<br \/>\nCourt also failed to appreciate the legal provision of <a href=\"\/doc\/1230613\/\" id=\"a_4\">Section 6<\/a><br \/>\nof the T.P. Act when the transfer of the property can be<br \/>\nprohibited only by provision of the law and not by the<br \/>\njudgment or direction referred in the writ petition under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_5\">Article<br \/>\n226<\/a> of the Constitution of India.  The only restriction in<br \/>\ntransferring the land is contained in Section 43 of the Bombay<br \/>\nTenancy and Agricultural Land Act and such restricted tenure<br \/>\nland can also be transferred after obtaining permission from<br \/>\nthe collector under the Bombay Land Revenue Code.  In the<br \/>\ninstant case, by adding these two conditions the entire<br \/>\ntransfer of the appellants are given discriminatory treatment.<br \/>\nThe Government of Gujarat, by its resolution dated<br \/>\n18.07.1973, considered the question of granting the land to<br \/>\nthe affected account holders of these villagers in lieu of the<br \/>\nland at the place possible was under consideration of the<br \/>\ngovernment and after consideration the government has<br \/>\nresolved to adopt the policy to the affected account holders.<br \/>\nIt is resolved to grant the land to the account holders,<br \/>\nwhose lands shall be acquired for establishing the Head<br \/>\nQuarter of the Agricultural University, including the Main<br \/>\nCampus, as per the following norms in cases where the land<br \/>\nshall be granted to them without the irrigation facility.<br \/>\nLAND TO BE ACQUIRED\/\t\tLAND TOBE GRANTED<br \/>\nACQUIRED LAND.\t\t\tIN EXCHANGE.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_27\">1.\tUpto 4 Acres\t\t\tEntire land.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_28\">2.\t4 Acres upto 12 Acres\t4 Acres.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_29\">3.\t12 Acres to 15 Acres\t\t1\/3rd portion of the<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\tacquired land.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_30\">4.\tExceeding 15 Acres.\t\t5 Acres.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_31\">If the land, which is likely to get the benefit of irrigation<br \/>\nin near future, will be granted to the affected account holders,<br \/>\nit is resolved to grant the land to them as per the following<br \/>\nnorms :\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_32\">LAND TO BE ACQUIRED\/\t\tLAND TO BE GRANTED<br \/>\nACQUIRED LAND.\t\t\tIN EXCHANGE.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_33\">1. \tUpto 3 Acres\t\t\tEntire land.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_34\">2.\tAbove 3 Acres and \t\t3 Acres.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_35\">         Upto 9 Acres.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_36\">3.\tAbove 9 Acres and\t\t1\/3rd portion of<br \/>\n\tupto 12 Acres.\t\t\tAcquired land.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_37\">4.\tAbove 12 Acres.\t\t4 Acres.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_38\">In our opinion, none of the appellants have violated any<br \/>\nof the rights guaranteed to the petitioners in the writ petition<br \/>\neither under the Constitution or under any other law and<br \/>\nhence the PIL filed by the respondents herein is not at all<br \/>\nmaintainable and is liable to be dismissed.    Now that the civil<br \/>\nappeals are allowed, we direct the respondent-authorities to<br \/>\ngrant possession of the land immediately to the appellants<br \/>\nwithout insisting for any undertaking from the appellants as<br \/>\ndirected by the High Court in its impugned judgment.  Since<br \/>\nthe patience of the appellants have been tested for so long by<br \/>\nthe State Government and other authorities and also the<br \/>\npublic interest litigant, it is not proper for the government and<br \/>\nother appropriate authorities to ask the appellants to wait for<br \/>\nany longer.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_39\">We direct the government and the other appropriate<br \/>\nauthorities to immediately handover possession of the land<br \/>\nallotted to them by way of rehabilitation.<br \/>\nAccordingly, we dismiss the writ petitions filed by the<br \/>\nrespondents and allow the above civil appeals and set aside<br \/>\nthe order impugned in these civil appeals passed by the High<br \/>\nCourt of Gujarat.  However, we order no costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Kansing Kalusing Thakore And Ors vs Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai And &#8230; on 20 November, 2006 Author: . A Lakshmanan Bench: Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5089 of 2006 PETITIONER: Kansing Kalusing Thakore and Ors RESPONDENT: Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai and Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/11\/2006 BENCH: Dr. AR. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-259941","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kansing Kalusing Thakore And Ors vs Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai And ... on 20 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kansing Kalusing Thakore And Ors vs Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai And ... on 20 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-17T07:36:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kansing Kalusing Thakore And Ors vs Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai And &#8230; on 20 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-17T07:36:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3266,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006\",\"name\":\"Kansing Kalusing Thakore And Ors vs Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai And ... on 20 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-17T07:36:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kansing Kalusing Thakore And Ors vs Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai And &#8230; on 20 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kansing Kalusing Thakore And Ors vs Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai And ... on 20 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kansing Kalusing Thakore And Ors vs Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai And ... on 20 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-17T07:36:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kansing Kalusing Thakore And Ors vs Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai And &#8230; on 20 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-17T07:36:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006"},"wordCount":3266,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006","name":"Kansing Kalusing Thakore And Ors vs Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai And ... on 20 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-17T07:36:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kansing-kalusing-thakore-and-ors-vs-rabari-maganbhai-vashrambhai-and-on-20-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kansing Kalusing Thakore And Ors vs Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai And &#8230; on 20 November, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259941","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=259941"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259941\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}