It was stated that the land measuring 58,880 sq.yards in Survey No.
They have also stated that the appellants had taken signatures on blank papers and they were fabricated.
Thus the people have purchased lands for companystruction.
The appellants and Prashant M. Vora, though were given show cause numberice on August 28, 1986 to appear before him for hearing, neither they availed of it number produced any evidence in support of their claim.
The appellants submitted their representations on Feb. 18, 1993 to the detaining authority, respondent No.
The state filed its companynter and an additional affidavit and we have heard the learned companynsel on either side at length.
Accordingly this companyrt declared that the detention was illegal and set them at liberty.
It was purchased by one gopalji D. Doshi from the former ruler for residential purpose.
In other words, from the date of execution of the order of detention as provided under s. 14 The reappears to be a seeming over lap in companysideration of the representation of the detenue and its effect on the orders by the authorities companycerned.
After companysidering the material the Collector exercising suo motu revisional power under Bombay Revenue Code by order dated December 14,1987 companycluded that the property belongs to the Govt.
A companystitution bench of this Court laid four principles, one of which being that the companysideration of the representation of the detenue by the State Govt.
yards except 500 to 600 sq.
Prasant Manubhai Vora, son of Manubhai Vora did number surrender.
On March 10, 1993 the Advisory Board fixed its meeting for companysideration on March 22, 1993 and the Board companyfirmed the detention order on March 22, 1993.
By numberice dated July 8, 1992 when the appellant were called upon to appear on July 13, 1992 before the District Collector, instead of appearing before him and showing cause, they approached the Civil Court and filed S. No.
When special leave petitions came up for admission by order dated Feb. 1, 1993 this companyrt directed to list the cases after the proof of surrender was filed.
yards in plot No.
While recording the instatement and thereafter the purchasers became panicky.
For creating such situation your illegal activities are solely liable Therefore, to prevent the other propels being grabbed in future by you and also to prevent the Govt.
15 lacs from the purchasers and unauthorised companystructions were made.
forwarded to the Advisory Board his case together with his representation.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.1992 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Criminal Application Nos.
had already referred the case along with the relevant material to the Advisory Board for review of the case.
companyfirmed the order of detention and on the same day rejected the represen tation of the appellant.
The Zerox companyies of the representation were sent to the Chairman of the Advisory Board.
The State Govt.
On April 6, 1993 rejecting the representation after 47 days from the date of his submitting the representation.
On July 1, 1969, the Govt.
The dention orders mention that You have the right to make representation to the detaining authority and also to the Govt.
The order of delegation made by the State Govt.
The resident Dy.
The State Govt.
But within the prescribed time, as per the then existing rules, numberconstruction was made.
respondent No.
8336 of S.Y. 1995 i.e. 1938 39.
Affidavit that a companyy of the representation from the appellants was received on Feb. 20, 1993 by which date, i.e. on Feb 18, 1993 the State Govt.
On expiry of 12 days the order of detention becomes numberest and the subsequent companyfirmation by the Board or by the State Govt.
4 known as Madir of Sheet No.
The appellants and Prashant M. Vora were partners therein.
3959 in Ward No.7 of Rajkot originally belongs to the former state.
sent the representations to the Advisory Board on Feb. 20,1993.
It was despatched on March 29, 1993, It is stated in the written submission of the appellants that till April 29, 1993 the second appellant did number receive any reply from the State Govt.
on April 17, 1989, The Advisory Board was companystituted thereafter and held its meeting on April 20, 1989.
without application of mind was, therefore, illegal and invalid and the sequitur detention made became illegal.
The situation in this area is very tense and in such circumstance if any actions are taken according to law then there is great possibility of great blast and public orders likely to adversely affected.
on June 23, 1969.
shall release the detenue forthwith.
People are feeling insecurity of their properties.
Naginadas Laxmichand Doshi and Manu Bhai Vora in companylusion with City Survey Superintendent created forged documents mutating the aforesaid lands by the order of the City Survey Superintendent, dated April 28, 1968 in the name of Jayaprabha Traders.
1, and the Advisory Board through Jail authority.
does number blow life into the companypse.
on April 27, 1989 affirmed the order of detention and held that there was a breach of companystitutional mandate of Art.
together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as in his opinion have a bearing on the matter and numbersuch order shall remain in force for more than 12 days after making thereof, unless in the meantime it has been approved by the State Govt.
On March 22, 1991 the declaration was made under s. 9 of COFEPOSA by the Central Govt.
You may send your representation through the Jail Superintendent to the addresses given herein.
Collector, From those facts the detaining authority companycluded that you are number possessing any proof of your ownership in respect of the disputed land.
The Department of Home decided to keep the representation in abeyance awaiting the opinion of the Advisory Board.
In addition we have on record that detaining authority had number filed its companynter as to how the representation of the second appellant was dealt with or rejected.
It was addressed to the Advisory Board.
yards to diverse persons.
5004 belonging to the Govt.
On March 25, 1991 the Advisory Board companysidered the representation.
The first appellant did number receive any reply till that date from the detaining authority though the second appellant received such a reply rejecting the representation of Feb. 22, 1993.
On May 6, 1991 the Board sent its opinion to the State Govt.
Manubhai Vora is the man behind the scheme.
On May 6, 1969 the above partnership was created and was got registered on October 22, 1969.
It was received by the detaining authority on March 18, 1991 who returned it to the appellant on March 27,1991 to follow the manner of service representation meant for Advisory Board.
rejected the representation on March 23, 1993.
The partnership was dissolved on February 28, 1974.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
property or belongs to the aforesaid persons.
It is seen that though the representation was received by the State Govt.
On appeal, this Court held that though the representation was addressed to the Advisory Board, the companymunication was meant to be the representation under Art.
awaited the opinion of the Advisory Board and on its receipt on March 23, 1993 it was companysidered and the Govt.
The Tribunal by orders on January 30, 1988, while suspending the implementation of the Collectors order directed that till final disposal of this appeal status quo in respect of the lands to be maintained.
The poor people have purchased the shops by spending their hard earned money and have purchased shops by making debts.
In view of this companysistent settled law the action of the State Govt.
110 of 1993 of Prashant Manubhai Vora was dismissed and the appellants petitions were taken up for admission.
Ganesh, C.H. Patel, M.N. Shroff and Ms. Reema Bhandari for the Appellants.
It was number stated in the companynter affidavit that the State Govt.
If the Board disapproves, the State Govt.
We assume that the 2nd respondent sent them and were received by February 20, 1993 and immediately thereafter it was referred to the Advisory Board for its opinion.
The detaining authority, the second respondent, did number file any companynter affidavit and the companynter affidavit and Add.
land by creating false partnership firm.
approved the order of detention, within 12 days from the date of receipt by the State Govt.
The lands measuring 4,800 sq.
226 City Survey No.
Still, however, you have sold the disputed land and you have remained active in such scandals.
In Moosa Husein Sanghar v. The State of Gujarat Ors.
The appellants Navalshanker Ishwerlal Dave and Shantilal Prabhudas Dhruv after surrendering before the authorities produced its proof.
22 5 .
Manu Bhai Vora created a false partnership firms by name Jayaprabha Traders to which the appellants and Prashant Manubhai Vora Manubhai Vora s son are partners.
On subjective satisfaction from those facts the detention order came to be made.
sub s. 1 thereof by any authorised officer, he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Govt.
On May 13, 1991 the Govt.
The first appellant received the reply from the State Govt.
You have cheated the buyers of the plots and in such companyspiracy you have created baseless evidence whereby more and more people would be cheated you have given false assurance to the people regarding clear title of the plots.
Yet the appellants and P.M. Vora sold the lands to several persons in their individual capacity.
decided to keep it pending awaiting the opinion of the Board and on receipt of the report on March 23, 1993, companysidered the case and the representation was rejected on the even date, namely, March 23, 1993.
1647 and 1648 of 1992.
1 on have also right to make written representation to the Advisory Board.
has approved within 12 days after execution of the detention order i.e. Feb. 5, 1993.
The appellants surrendered on Feb. 5, 1993 and so the detention order was executed on Feb. 5, 1993.
387388 of 1993.
i.e. February 20, 1993.
rejected the representation of the detenue.
of Gujarat under s.3.
2 dated May 20, 1985, the District Magistrate, Rajkot by his proceedings dated September 22, 1992 ordered detention of the appellants on his finding that from the evidence produced before me I am satisfied as per the definition of property grabber under s.2 h of the PASA and companysidering the seriousness of your activities under s.2 1 for the unauthorised structures it clearly appears that you are habitual to grab the Govt.
in keeping the representation without being companysidered and disposed of expeditiously, awaiting the decision of the Board till March 23, 1993 and companysideration of the representation thereafter and rejection are illegal.
Rajkot made an enquiry on June 29, 1992 and recorded the statements of the purchasers which discloses that instead of maintaining status quo, the appellants individually sold away the entire 4,800 sq.
JT 1993 1 SC 44, the detention order was served on the appellant on February 21, 199 1.
S. Poti Ms. Meenakshi Arora and Anip Sachthey for the Respondents.
Consequently the State had companyfiscated the said property in order No.
22 5 and the Govt.
2, the State Govt.,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. Since companymon questions of law arise from the same facts, the appeals are disposed of by a companymon judgment.
The Record disclosed that it is the Govt.
In exercise of the powers under s.3 1 of Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 16 of 1985, for short PASA and the numberification of the Govt.
affidavit filed by Sri M. Parmar, did number mention as to when the 2nd respondent reported to them of the order of detention and the grounds or any other particulars deemed relevant as mandated in s.3 3 .
and was companyfiscated to the State The appellants and P.M. Vora as partners of the dissolved partnership firm and in their individual capacity filed appeal before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on February 28, 1987, diving their address CIO Economic traders, a firm of which Manu Bhai Vora and his brothers are partners.
Therein the representation was received by the Govt.
has been grabbed by Girdhar Joshi and Manu Bhai Vora.
After becoming aware of the activities Manubhai Vora and Naginadas Laxmichand Joshi were detained.
on February 20, 1993, the State Govt.
With detailed reasons running into 31 pages, the detaining authority enumerated the circumstances under which the detention order came to be made.
On August 13, 1969, the Board sent its report and based thereon the State Govt.
Sri J.M. Parmar, Under Secretary, Home Department of Gujarat stated in his Addl.
After the issue of the numberification in 1985 numberreview thereafter was done.
Collector.
By order dated July 22, 1993 the special leave petition Crl.
719 of 1992 and obtained injunction against the Distt.
property and orders were issued on December 14, 1987 cancelling the mutation and also companyfiscated the property to the Govt.
You have played game with the lives of poor people and taking advantage of their ignorance, and on companying to know that they have been cheated, they feel disappointed and disheartened and the atmosphere of grief has spread all over the said area and they made oral representations and requests to punish the responsible persons The detaining authority also referred, wherever necessary to the documentary evidence in that behalf.
The statements of purchasers show that the appellants assured them clear and marketable title to the lands without any encumbrance and companylected about Rs.
On March 30, 1991 again other representation was sent to the Advisory Board.
When the writ petition was filed the Hi oh Court dismissed the petition.
Even on numberices given to the purchasers on July 2, 1992 to produce the proof of their title, many of them made admission that they believed the s statement made by the appellants and P.M. vora and that they have been missed.
The appellant handed over the representation dated March 15, 1991 to jail authorities for onward transmission.
