1. By way of present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant – State of Gujarat, which appears through its officers, prima facie, appears to be adamant in not complying with the earlier orders passed by this court and has again challenged the oral judgment dated 21.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 12469 of 2016 by which, the land which was granted to the respondent trust way back in the year 1920 was sought to be declared as excess land and intended to confiscate the said land.

2. During pendency of this appeal, on several occasions, learned AGP has requested for time to file affidavit before earlier Bench as well as this Bench and has filed their affidavit-in-reply. The rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the respondent trust.

3. The short facts arise from the record are as under:-

3.1 That the respondent is a registered trust known as Victoria Jubilee Hospital Trust and its allied concern known as Ranchhodlal Chhotalal Dispensary, which was allotted land from the erstwhile State of Bombay between 1881 and 1903. In the year 1922, the State of Bombay introduced survey and settlement according to which, the respondent trust was assigned City Survey No.608, Railwaypura, Ahmedabad and the land allotted to the second trust i.e. Ranchhodlal Chhotalal Dispensary was given Survey No.609. The dispute in the present proceedings is with regard to Survey No.608. That the Survey No.608 was measured for the first time in the year 1922 in two parts. The measurement sheet No.9 recorded that one piece of land is admeasuring 2589 sq. yds. whereas the measurement sheet No.10 recorded the extent of another parcel of land as admeasuring 15,254 sq. yds. While totaling the above two measurements, the concerned authority made an arithmetical error and totaled the above two figures as 10,843 sq. yds. whereas the said figures must be a total to 17,843 sq. yds.

3.2 The original petitioner having come to know about the said arithmetical error, made an application to the concerned authority. During pendency of the proceedings, the property in part was constructed.

3.3 The City Survey Superintendent, Ahmedabad on 7.7.2000 visited the site and after verification made a proposal to the Superintendent of Land Records for correction of measurement. As per the order dated 13.7.2001, the measurement was corrected from 10,843 sq. yds. to 17,843 sq. yds. Thereafter, the Settlement Commissioner, after verifying the record, passed an order dated 6.8.2001 holding that the City Survey No.608 was admeasuring 17,843 sq. yds. instead of 10,843 sq. yds.

3.4 Thereafter, the proceedings were suo-motu taken in revision by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department in the year 2004 and by order dated 6.12.2004, the said authority quashed and set aside the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner.

3.5 Again, the City Survey Superintendent conducted inquiry under Section 37(2) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code and submitted a report dated 5.5.2007 whereby the said authority arrived to the conclusion that the area on the spot tallied with the total measurement as mentioned in the original measurement sheet Nos.9 and 10 prepared during the original first survey conducted in the year 1922.

3.6 The District Collector, Ahmedabad again took the said decision in revision under Section 211 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code and, ultimately, vide order dated 30.6.2008 set aside the report dated 5.5.2007 by which the land of Survey No.608 was declared admeasuring 17,843 sq. yds. The said decision was challenged by the original petitioner by revision application No.27 of 2008 before the appellate authority. The said revision application was dismissed by the authority vide order dated 30.3.2009.

3.7 The original petitioner challenged both these orders by way of filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No.3476 of 2009 before this Court. The said writ petition came to be allowed in favour of the original petitioner vide oral order dated 13.5.2009. The said decision was challenged by the State authorities by way of filing Letters Patent Appeal No.2234 of 2009. By oral order dated 25.2.2010, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State authorities.

3.8 Again when the petitioner requested to comply with the order passed by the Division Bench and correct the measurement in the city survey, the Collector, Ahmedabad passed another order dated 10.6.2010. Again the District Collector, Ahmedabad relying upon some contentions raised in the proceedings, held that the correct measurement was 10,843 sq. yds. The said decision was again challenged by the petitioner by way of filing revision application and by order dated 31.5.2016, the decision of the Collector, Ahmedabad was upheld by the appellate authority. Accordingly, both these orders were challenged.

3.9 The respondent appeared before the learned Single Judge and filed affidavit-in-reply. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has again asked the authority for re-measurement of the said land and again the property was re-measured and affidavit to that effect was also filed. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival submissions, documentary evidence and the orders passed by this Court, quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Authority. Hence, this appeal.

4. Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned AGP would submit that the center question is with regard to Survey No.608 and the land actually granted, as shown in the revenue register, was admeasuring 10,843 sq. yds. It is also the case put forward by the State authority that the proceedings which were initiated before the City Survey Superintendent, Ahmedabad, there it was the case of the respondent trust itself that the land was admeasuring 10,843 sq. yds. She has, by way of additional affidavit (which was not produced before the learned Single Judge), submitted that it was the case of the respondent trust that the land was admeasuring 10,843 sq. yds. and therefore, now, they cannot say that the correct measurement was of 17,843 sq. yds. She would submit that pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, fresh measurement was done and a report was submitted along with the affidavit dated 5.1.2019. By taking us through the said affidavit along with the annexures, she would submit that the said land of Survey No.608 was divided in 3 parts i.e. City Survey Nos.608/1, 608/2 and 608/3 and measurement of all these parts was of 17,843 sq. yds. She, therefore, would submit that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not accepting the case put forward by the authority. She would submit that it is true that the appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench, however, the authority was permitted to pass fresh order in accordance with law considering the relevant material and therefore, the case was again examined. In view of above submissions, she requests that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bhaskar Tanna for the respondent trust has vehemently opposed the appeal and would submit that this is a 3rd round of litigation at the instance of the State authority. He would submit that the consistent reports submitted by the City Survey Superintendent, Ahmedabad reflect that the measurement of the land in question i.e. Survey No.608 was in fact, calculated at 17,843 sq. yds. and not 10,843 sq. yds. He would submit that earlier order, which was passed by the Collector in the year 2008 and confirmed by the appellate authority, was challenged by way of writ petition. Both the orders were quashed and set aside and the Collector, Ahmedabad was directed to rectify the error with regard to the measurement. The said decision was challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.2234 of 2009 and the said appeal was dismissed. He would submit that while dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench directed the authorities to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and has also directed to examine the application and Change Inquiry Nos.672 and 673 made by the trust. He would further submit that even as per the latest measurement, which was carried out during the pendency of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, it was recorded as 17,843 sq. yds. as per the City Survey Superintendent, Ahmedabad and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed and set aside the impugned order. He would submit that the appellant authority has failed to bring measurement of the property as per their say (i.e. measurement of Survey No.608 at 10,843 sq. yds.) since the measurement which was produced during pendency of the writ petition suggested that the land was divided in 3 parts i.e. City Survey Nos. 608/1, 608/2 and 608/3, however, none of the said part was measured at 10,843 sq. yds. as submitted by learned AGP. He, therefore, would submit that the present appeal may be dismissed with costs.

6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. The report of the City Survey Superintendent, Ahmedabad which was carried out in the year 2001 and which was prepared after examining the record declared that the land of Survey No.608 of Railwaypura was admeasuring 17,843 sq. yds., however, the said decision was suo-motu taken into revision by the Collector, Ahmedabad and the said authority came to the conclusion that the correct measurement was 10,843 sq. yds. The said order was upheld by the revisional authority, however, both the orders were challenged by the original petitioner by way of filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No.3476 of 2009, were quashed and set aside by the oral order dated 13.5.2009, which reads as under:-

“[1] The controversy brought before the Court is primary relatable only to an arithmetical error which has occurred in the records of the Revenue Department maintained by the respondent – authorities.

[2] Upon notices having been issued, learned AGP appears, and states under the instructions of Shri Deepakbhai B. Pandya, City Survey Superintendent No.3, Ahmedabad who is personally present in the Court, that an apparent error has occurred in maintenance of record and in the event the impugned orders are quashed and set aside, necessary steps for correcting the error shall be taken by the respondent – authority within maximum period of two months.

[3] Accordingly, without recording the facts and the respective contentions in detail, in light of the statement made by learned AGP, the impugned orders dated 30th March, 2009 made by the respondent No.2 – authority (Annexure – Z1) and 6th December, 2004 (Annexure – H) as well as the order dated 30th June, 2008 made by respondent No.3 (Annexure – U) are hereby quashed and set aside restoring the matter to respondent No.3, the Collector, Ahmedabad District for initiating appropriate action to rectify the error in accordance with law. Respondent – authorities shall ensure that the said exercise is carried out and completed within a period of 60 days from today.

[4] In light of what is stated hereinbefore, the petition stands allowed accordingly. With no order as to costs.”

7.1 The aforesaid decision was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.2234 of 2009 and the Division Bench in its reasoned order dated 25.2.2010, made following observations:-

“We are of the opinion that the ends of justice shall be met if the Ahmedabad District Collector carries out the rectification procedure as directed by the learned Single Judge keeping in view the relevant records.

For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this Appeal in limine. It is directed that the appellant no. 3 District Collector will carry out procedure for rectification of the Revenue Record in respect of lands of City Survey No. 608 and 609A in occupation of the respondent- Victoria Jubilee Hospital Trust. While carrying rectification procedure the District Collector will take into consideration the relevant materials including the above referred applications Change Inquiry No. 672 and 673 of 1971 made by the Trust to the Charity Commissioner and also the judgment and order dated 31st January 1979 passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in above referred Civil Misc. Application Nos. 282 and 283 of 1978.

The rectification exercise will be completed by the appellant no. 3 as directed hereinabove within six months from today.”

7.2 The authorities are supposed to comply with the orders passed by this Court but again, the authority initiated proceedings pursuant to the application made by the respondent trust to comply with the aforesaid orders and passed the order impugned in present appeal.

8. It is pertinent to note at this stage that the learned Single Judge passed oral order on 9.1.2018 in Special Civil Application No.12469 of 2016, which reads as under:-

“Considering the fact that the property is very old and as asserted by Ms.Sangeeta Pahwa, learned counsel for the petitioner, the same was already measured way back in the year 1922.

In order to verify the totality of the facts and the contentions which are raised in the petition, respondent No.2 is hereby directed to get the property measured through the competent authority and place a report on record of this petition, on, or before, 05th February, 2018. The petitioner shall cooperate with the respondent authority while carrying out the measurement.

S.O to 06th February, 2018.”

8.1 Accordingly, measurement of the land was again carried out by the City Survey Superintendent, Ahmedabad and an affidavit to that effect was filed on 5.1.2019 along with the details of the measurement. If we see the measurement, entire Survey No.608 is earmarked with black pen whereas with red pen Survey No.608 was divided in 3 parts i.e. City Survey Nos. 608/1, 608/2 and 608/3. City Survey No.608/1 is measured at 1486.60 sq. mts., City Survey No.608/2 is measured at 5,852.84 sq. mts. and City Survey No.608/3 is measured at 7,579.45 sq. mts. Therefore, total measurement of Survey No.608 is 14,918.89 sq. mts. (i.e. 17,843 sq. yds.). Therefore, again the measurement has come to 17,843 sq. yds.

8.2 All these aspects have been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in detail. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the orders, which have been passed by the authorities, are required to be quashed and set aside.

9. So far as certain factual aspects, which have been relied upon by the learned AGP with regard to proceedings between 1970 to 1979 (which have been disposed of way back in the year 1979) are concerned, the measurements had been carried out in the year 2000, 2001, 2007 and lastly in the year 2018 and therefore, the same would not be helpful to the State authorities.

10. Considering above aspects, we are of the opinion that the appellant and/or their officers are adamant in not complying with the oral order impugned in this appeal and by hook or by crook keeping the matters pending which have been decided way back in the year 2009 and 2010. We are of the opinion that there was no need to file present appeal having no substance or involvement of any law point. Hence, we dismiss the appeal.

11. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, Civil Appeal for stay would not survive and it accordingly stands dismissed.