Kapilaben Ambalal Patel & Ors.


State of Gujarat

Civil Appeal No. 6380 of 2012

Provisions Involved

Section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act


The appellants claim to be the legal representative of the original owner of the land, namely, Parsottam bhai Patel who died before the commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in the Gujarat. Family of the said Parsottam bhai filed statement under section 6 of the 1976 Act on 13.8.1976 as owners of the land measuring 3038510 square meters bearing survey no’s 362,378, 592, 593/1, 593/2 (Final Plot Numbers 280, 287, 108, 115 and 116)of village Manjalpur, District Vaddodra in the State of Gujarat the competent authority pursuant to the statement submitted by the land owners and considering the objections to the draft statement, issued final statement  under Section 9 of the 1976 Act, declaring 12 personas as holders of surplus/ excess land to the tune of 12385 square meters.The land owners were duly informed that the surplus/ excess land referred to in the final statement will be acquired by State Government as and when required.Land owner had also file an application for exemption under section 21 of the 1976 Act. Then various notices were served to the appellants for the possession of land and it was mentioned that the date of handling over possession was fixed on 1.2.1986 at 11.00 hrs and all the addresses were called upon to remain present at the site. Then writ petition was filed by the appellant which was allowed by the learned single judge. Being aggrieved by which appeal was filed by the State Government being LPA No. 460/2002, which was allowed by division bench of HC. The division Bench held that the application filed by the landowners under section 21 of the 197 Act was barred by limitation having been filed after 1139 days from the date of commencement of the Act. Feeling aggrieved appellants have approached the Apex Court.



The Division Bench was right in concluding that the writ petition filed by the appellants after the lapse of 14 years was hopelessly barred by delay and suffered from laches. A vague ground has been raised to challenge the said conclusion of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge completely glossed over this crucial aspect of the matter, and the court finds no reason to depart from that conclusion.



Appeal has been dismissed and all the pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand to be disposed of.