Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 182 views

    Gaekwad v. Savjibhai Patel

    Uploaded by

    Priyanshi Gandhi
    The case involved a dispute over 242 sections of land in Varodara, India. The original plaintiff had declared the land as vacant under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and then signed an agreement with the defendant to develop housing for lower income groups. The plaintiff later tried to cancel the agreement. The trial court and high court both ruled in favor of the defendant, finding the agreement valid and ordering specific performance. The high court said the plaintiff could enforce the decree once authorities issued a final declaration under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gaekwad v. Savjibhai Patel

    Uploaded by

    Priyanshi Gandhi
    182 views4 pages
    The case involved a dispute over 242 sections of land in Varodara, India. The original plaintiff had declared the land as vacant under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and then signed an agreement with the defendant to develop housing for lower income groups. The plaintiff later tried to cancel the agreement. The trial court and high court both ruled in favor of the defendant, finding the agreement valid and ordering specific performance. The high court said the plaintiff could enforce the decree once authorities issued a final declaration under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.

    Original Title

    GAEKWAD V. SAVJIBHAI PATEL.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a dispute over 242 sections of land in Varodara, India. The original plaintiff had declared the land as vacant under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and then signed an agreement with the defendant to develop housing for lower income groups. The plaintiff later tried to cancel the agreement. The trial court and high court both ruled in favor of the defendant, finding the agreement valid and ordering specific performance. The high court said the plaintiff could enforce the decree once authorities issued a final declaration under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    182 views4 pages

    Gaekwad v. Savjibhai Patel

    Uploaded by

    Priyanshi Gandhi
    The case involved a dispute over 242 sections of land in Varodara, India. The original plaintiff had declared the land as vacant under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and then signed an agreement with the defendant to develop housing for lower income groups. The plaintiff later tried to cancel the agreement. The trial court and high court both ruled in favor of the defendant, finding the agreement valid and ordering specific performance. The high court said the plaintiff could enforce the decree once authorities issued a final declaration under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    HER HIGHNESS MAHARNI SHANTI DEVI

    V.

    SAVJIBHAIBHAI PATEL & ORS

    LEGAL CONTRACT
    PRIYANSHI GANDHI
    MODULE LEADER: AADYA DUBE
    CASE FACTS:
    PLAINTIFF: Maharani Shantidevi P Gaekwad

    DEFENDANT: Savjibhai Haribhai Patel


    The case, Maharani Shantidevi v. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel, decided in 2001 involves a land
    in question situated in the city of Varodara. Under the Urban land ceiling Act, the ceiling
    limit in the city is 1500 square meters. On fourteenth September, 1976 a revelation in Form
    No.(1) under Section 6(1) was recorded by Fatehsinhrao Gaekwad( the original plaintiff)
    proclaiming 242 sections of land as vacant land under the ULC Act. After the declaration, an
    agreement was signed between the original plaintiff and the defendant. Fatehsinhrao
    Gaekwad as the owner and Savjibhai as the licensee in respect for a property known as Laxmi
    Vilas palace estate. The MOA signed reads that the defendant had evolved a scheme for
    constructing housing units for the lower sections of the society. An power of attorney was
    also given to the defendant by the original plaintiff to take care of the construction policy of
    the plaintiff. Soon after the agreement, on 10 February, 1978 many schemes were brought
    forward by the defendant for lawful approval. After offering 5 schemes, finally after the
    submission of the sixth scheme, the defendant released an affidavit-cum-declaration stating
    that all the terms and conditions were agreed upon by the plaintiff and he had voluntarily
    signed the agreement in complete consciousness and under any circumstances the agreement
    was to cancellable. It also authorised the defendant to have irrevocable control over the
    plaintiff’s property and thereon put the housing scheme into action. After a few days a notice
    was issued by the original plaintiff stating that the agreement on 24 th March and the affidavit-
    cum-declaration was illegal, inoperative and henceforth, cancelling the power and the
    agreement.

    ISSUES:
     Whether the agreement could be rescinded; power of attorney could be revoked and
    affidavit-cum-declaration ceased to be operative or not?
     Whether it is a case for grant of relief of specific performance?
     If specific performance was to be ordered, whether any conditions were required to be
    imposed.
     One of the questions which falls for our determination is as to what rights the plaintiff
    is entitled to enforce prior to issue of declaration under Section 21 of the ULC Act
    and before the plaintiff is put into possession.
     Is the plaintiff entitled to seek specific performance of the agreement or is he entitled
    to sue for only damages?
     Whether the land in question is allowed for construction of dwelling units for weaker
    sections of the society?
    RULES:
     The Urban Land ceiling Act, 1976 : The Act states that no person shall hold vacant
    land in excess of the ceiling limit in the territories to which this act applies.
     Section 21 in The Urban Land ( ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976: Excess
     vacant land not to be treated as vacant in some cases;
    Where a person acquires a vacant land, and declares it according to the time and
    specified manner by the law, and uses the land for construction of such housing
    schemes, shall be entitled to hold the land.
    When a person contradicts, the subject to which the permission of holding the land
    had been granted, then after giving a chance to the person of being heard, the land
    shall be declared as excess land and henceforth, all the provisions of the Act, shall
    apply.

    JUDGEMENT:
    “the High Court modifying the decree passed by the trial court for specific performance in
    respect of land in question, directed that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 in this appeal, shall be
    entitled to enforce the said decree subject to the issue of final declaration under Section 21
    of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (For short, the `ULC Act') by the
    authorities in accordance with law. In other respects, substantially the judgment and decree
    of the trial court was upheld”1

    ANALYSIS:
    “By judgment and decree dated 12th March, 1992 the trial court decreed the suit declaring
    the agreement and the power and affidavit-cum-declaration as valid and subsisting
    documents binding on original defendant no.1 and on his legal representatives. A decree for
    specific performance of the agreement was also granted in favour of the plaintiff. The
    defendants were ordered to specifically perform the agreement and were restrained from
    committing breach of the agreement, power of attorney and obstructing the plaintiff from
    acting as constituted attorney of defendant no.1 and from taking any action regarding the
    scheme.”2

    The trial court judgement was challenged in the high court by the original plaintiff, but the
    high court declared a similar judgement i.e., upholding the judgement of the trial court. The
    judgement was based on the contention considering the case of agency compiled with
    interest. It declared that the power of attorney could not be revoked, the affidavit-cum-
    declaration did not cease to be operative. After the judgement of the high court, the
    competent authority on 20th June 1998, finalised the fifth scheme offered by the defendant
    declaring the defendant being granted the power of attorney holder of the vacant land for the
    purpose of initialising the housing schemes for the weaker sections of the society. Soon after,
    the judgement was challenged in the Gujarat High Court through a writ petition. The writ
    petition was withdrawn with the appeal. So the final decision taken by the high court
    upholding the judgement given by the trial court.

    1
    Maharani Shantidevi P Geakwad v. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel
    2
    Ibid
    CRITICAL VIEW:
    After critically analysing the case, and supporting the judgement proposed by both the courts,
    I would like to put forward my views on the judgement on the further mentioned contentions.
    Firstly, the sole purpose of the agreement is to create dwelling units for the weaker sections
    of the society, which should not be compelled with any other personal interests of the owner.
    The only purpose that can be identified behind cancellation of the agreement was of personal
    benefits, hence the courts declaration of this as a case of ‘agency compelled with interest’
    was a completely upholding contention. Further looking towards the validity of the affidavit-
    cum-declaration, according to me the agreement was totally valid as the agreement was
    initiated by the plaintiff himself and the defendant should be granted the power of attorney as
    to initiate the dwelling scheme so that matters can be taken care of easily, and more
    efficiently.

    Although the delay caused in the decision making process took a lot longer than it should
    have, matters relating to such public welfare schemes should be taken care of with special
    authorities who would initiate the decisions without a lot delays, so that the dwelling units for
    the weaker sections could have been constructed at a faster phase.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy