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 Whether the agreement could be rescinded; power of attorney could be revoked and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.