2004 (10) TMI 625 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sale and ownership of the lands in question.
2. Applicability of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act (ALC Act) and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (ULC Act).
3. Legality of various administrative actions and notices issued by the Collector and other authorities.
4. Compliance with the High Court and Supreme Court judgments and orders.
5. Contempt of court proceedings against the authorities for non-compliance with judicial orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sale and Ownership of the Lands in Question:
The former Ruler of Bhavnagar sold approximately 952 acres of land to the appellants, which was registered by the Collector. This sale was challenged multiple times by the State Government and other authorities on various grounds, including the argument that the land was "bid land" and could not be transferred, and that the sale violated the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT) and subsequent judicial orders upheld the validity of the sale and the ownership of the appellants.

2. Applicability of the ALC Act and the ULC Act:
Initially, the land in question was excluded from the ALC Act by the Collector's decision in 1971, which was upheld by the GRT. However, with the enactment of the ULC Act in 1976, the land fell under the definition of vacant land and was governed by the ULC Act. The competent authority under the ULC Act verified the title of the appellants and allowed them to retain the land for constructing dwelling units. The High Court and the Supreme Court confirmed that the land was governed by the ULC Act and not the ALC Act.

3. Legality of Various Administrative Actions and Notices Issued by the Collector and Other Authorities:
Several notices were issued by the Deputy Collector and other authorities attempting to reopen the ALC proceedings and challenge the validity of the sale and ownership of the land. These actions were repeatedly challenged by the appellants and were quashed by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The courts held that these issues were already decided and could not be reopened. The High Court specifically quashed a show cause notice issued by the Collector in 1996, stating it was unfair and unjust to raise issues that were decided years earlier.

4. Compliance with the High Court and Supreme Court Judgments and Orders:
The High Court and the Supreme Court issued multiple orders directing the authorities to comply with the judicial decisions, including the sanctioning of plans for construction on the lands. Despite these orders, the authorities failed to comply, leading to further legal actions by the appellants. The Supreme Court reiterated that the issues of the ALC Act, ULC Act, and the validity of the sale were conclusively decided and directed the authorities to comply with its orders.

5. Contempt of Court Proceedings Against the Authorities:
The appellants initiated contempt proceedings against the authorities for non-compliance with the judicial orders. The Supreme Court noted that the authorities' actions were in violation of its orders and amounted to gross contempt. The Court directed the authorities to comply with its orders, including the sanctioning of plans for construction and making necessary entries in the revenue records.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the sale and ownership of the lands by the appellants, confirmed that the land was governed by the ULC Act, and directed the authorities to comply with its orders. The Court also emphasized that the issues decided by the earlier proceedings could not be reopened and that the authorities' failure to comply with judicial orders amounted to contempt. The appeals were allowed in part, and the authorities were directed to grant non-agricultural permissions and sanction the plans for construction on the lands.