In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court has directed a land dispute case, subject to the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, back to the Prant Officer. Emphasizing the crucial need for a fair hearing, the court highlighted the importance of providing both parties with an equitable opportunity to present their respective claims.

The conflict originated when the purchaser acquired a share of an ancestral property, triggering objections from other heirs. Subsequently, the Prant Officer nullified the transaction following a challenge. Despite pursuing multiple appeals, all of which were initially rejected, the buyer later argued that the address used in the appeals was incorrect. Allegedly, he had not received any notifications from the Prant Officer.

The Bench, comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, stressed the significance of affording both parties a chance to present substantial evidence before the Prant Officer. They remarked that condemning the appellant without a complete opportunity to present his case would be unjust, particularly considering the significant investment made in acquiring the land in 2007.

The appellant contested the High Court's decision, which deemed the land acquisition in violation of the Act. The disputed land, originally owned by Shankarbhai Dungardas, had been passed down to his three sons. The appellant asserted that the land had undergone partition, and he legally acquired a portion through a sale agreement with Respondent Nos. 10 to 19. Despite this, the Prant Officer declared the transaction unlawful, leading to eviction orders.

A revision process under Section 35 before the State Government ensued, during which the appellant claimed ignorance of the initial revision. The Additional Secretary of the Revenue Department dismissed the revision, citing the principle of res judicata. Subsequent attempts at redress through the High Court and a letters patent appeal were also unsuccessful.

The appellant's claim regarding an incorrect address on the Prant Officer's order and subsequent revision was considered by the court. Despite inconsistencies in the appellant's denial of residing at the stated address, the court emphasized the need for a fair hearing on substantive aspects.

The Court noted that Section 31(2) of the Act defines the term 'fragment' in the context of land size. Despite shortcomings in the appellant's presentation, the Bench observed that he was not given a fair hearing on substantive aspects by the authorities. The court concluded that the appellant, having acquired the land in 2007 and invested significantly, should not be adversely judged without a fair opportunity to present his case.

As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration, underlining the importance of a fair and comprehensive hearing in such legal disputes.

Case: Kanaiyalal Mafatlal Patel v The State of Gujarat and others,

Civil Appeal No. ............... of 2023

(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6536 of 2022)

Click here to read/download judgment.