Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Chandubhai Ramabhai Parmar Deceased ... vs State Of Gujarat & 4....Opponent(S) on 8 May, 2014

Author: M.R.Shah

Bench: M.R. Shah

          C/MCA/1400/2014                                         ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 1400 of 2014
                                       In
             SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4743 of 2011

================================================================
   CHANDUBHAI RAMABHAI PARMAR DECEASED THROUGH HEIRS &
                       5....Applicant(s)
                            Versus
             STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DHARMESH V SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2.4 , 3 - 6
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1
MR AY KOGJE, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 4
================================================================

         CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

                                Date : 08/05/2014


                                 ORAL ORDER

1.00. Present application has been preferred by the applicants herein - original petitioners to recall and/or review judgement and order dated 28/4/2011 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4743 of 2011.

2.00. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by judgement and order dated 28/4/2011 passed in Special Civil Application No. 4743 of 2011 which was preferred by the applicants herein - original petitioners, this Court has confirmed the judgement and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the order came to be passed in favour of the landlord under Page 1 of 4 C/MCA/1400/2014 ORDER section 32(G) of the Bombay Tenancy Act in the year 1963 and thereafter the land in question came to be disposed of in favour of owner under section 32(P) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. It appears that thereafter in the year 1977, the Mamlatdar and ALT initiated suo-motu proceedings under section 32(1)(B) of the Act and by order dated 19/10/1977, the Mamlatdar and ALT declared the grand-father of the applicant as tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act, which came to be confirmed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeals), Nadiad and the said order came to be challenged before Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by judgement and order dated 1/12/2010 allowed the said Revision Application and quashed and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT declaring the grand-father of the applicant as tenant vide order dated 19/10/1977 and same was confirmed by the Dy.Collector on the ground that once the proceedings under section 32(G) and 32(P) of the Bombay Tenancy Act were passed, thereafter it was not open for the Mamlatdar and ALT to reopen the proceedings under section 32(1)(B) of the Act by exercising the suo-motu powers. The said judgement and order passed by the tribunal has been confirmed by this Court. It appears that against the judgement and order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application 4743 of 2011, applicants preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1169 of 2011 before the Division Bench of this Court and the applicants withdrew the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal with a liberty to approach this Court by way of review application by submitting that attention of this Court was not drawn to sub-section (1)(B) of section 32 of Gujarat Tenancy Act and also to the decision in the case of Rasul Miya Rehman Miya Vs. Patel Lalbhai Shankerbhai, reported in Page 2 of 4 C/MCA/1400/2014 ORDER 1983(1) GLR 714. That is how the present application has been preferred by the applicants herein.

3.00. Mr.Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently submitted that as such at the time of hearing of the main Special Civil Application attention of this Court was not drawn to the provisions of section 32(1)(B) of the Tenancy Act. It is submitted that even attention of this Court was not drawn to the decision of this Court in the case of Rasul Miya Rehman Miya (supra) which holds that the Mamlatdar is having suo-motu powers to protect the interest of the tenant. It is submitted that due to the bonafide error and/or mistake, the aforesaid was not pointed out to this Court and therefore, it was requested to recall / review the order passed by this Court dismissing the Special Civil Application and to consider the above.

4.00. Heard Mr.Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants and Mr.Kogje, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 and Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents - State authorities.

5.00. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such whatever was argued before this Court and whatever the submissions were made, the same were considered by this Court. It is required to be noted that the submissions which are now sought to be made apart from the fact that they were not canvassed earlier before this Court, even in the memo of the Special Civil Application also, there is no reference to the above.

6.00. Even otherwise, even considering the decision of this Court in the case of Rasul Miya Rehman Miya (supra) which has now relied upon and even considering section 32(1) (B) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, upon which reliance has been placed, the same shall not be of any assistance to the applicants. It is required to be noted that as such the proceedings under section 32G and 32P of the Act were already initiated and orders were passed and the land in question was disposed of in favour of the landowner under section 32(P) of the Bombay Tenancy Act and therefore, assuming that the Mamlatdar initiated proceedings under section 32(1)(B) of the Act suo-motu, the revenue tribunal rightly passed the order. That thereafter, after the order under section 32(G) and 32(P) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, the Mamlatdar could not have initiated any proceedings being suo- motu proceedings. Under the circumstances and considering the above, the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is not required to be interfered with and is not rightly not interfered with. There is no substance in the present review application and hence the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

(M.R.SHAH, J.) Rafik Page 4 of 4