Gujarat High Court
Ashokbhai Pragjibhai Dobaria & vs State Of Gujarat Thro Specical on 18 December, 2013
Author: Anant S.Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
ASHOKBHAI PRAGJIBHAI DOBARIAV/SSTATE OF GUJARAT THRO SPECICAL SECRETARY C/SCA/6928/2012 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6928 of 2012 =============================================== ASHOKBHAI PRAGJIBHAI DOBARIA & 5....Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SPECICAL SECRETARY & 5....Respondent(s) =============================================== Appearance: MR ASHISH M DAGLI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1-6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2-6 =============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 18/12/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed by legal heirs of one Makanbhai Prabhubhai through power of attorney under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 28.2.2012 passed by revisional authority in revision application No. 4 of 2010 whereby the challenge was to the order dated 28.5.1975 passed by District Collector, Valsad with regard to vesting of land into Government. Accordingly entry No. 1240 dated 15.9.1975 was recorded qua block No.550/1, 551, 564, 565, 573, 582, 584 and 611 of village-Ubharat, Taluka: Jalapor, District: Navsari.
2. It is not in dispute that the order dated 28.5.1975 passed by District Collector, Valsad came to be challenged after 35 years and one of the reasons stated for such delay is that mother of the legal heirs expired on 21.8.2008 and in old revenue records name of father of legal heirs continued and time and again they have inquired by the office of District Collector but the order dated 28.5.1975 was not available. That along with the above, it is mainly contended that Shri Makanbhai Prabhubhai expired on 10.6.1972 and therefore no notice under 135(d) was served and, therefore, the petitioners/legal heirs being unaware about revenue proceedings etc. could not immediately take action and therefore, also the order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3. The revenue authorities have considered all the above aspects but inspite of best efforts the old record before 35 years pertaining to order dated 28.5.1975 and proceedings undertaken by District Collector was not traceable and, therefore, the revision application considering the length of inordinate delay and other revenue record available, the revision authority passed the order which is under challenge basically on two grounds that notice under Section 135(d) of Land Revenue Code was not served upon Makanbhai Prabhubhai who died on 10.6.1972 and knowledge about vesting of land into Government was only in the year 2008 when mother of the petitioners died. In support of the arguments learned advocate would submit that when no record is available pertaining to proceedings and order passed on 28.5.1975 the revisional authority is not justified in rejecting the revision application particularly, when the petitioners are not well versed with law and revenue proceedings. It is also submitted that the order impugned is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and any order passed against dead persons deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. As against above, learned AGP would contend that affidavit-in-reply filed by Mamlatdar, District:
Navsari reveal about vesting of subject land with mutation entry which attained finality and there is inordinate and gross delay of challenging the entry after about 33 years and even proceedings were initiated first time in the year 2008. The record reveal as per the affidavit that entry No. 1240 was mutated after following procedure including service of notice under section 135(d) and no one has taken objections. Even upon death of father of the petitioners they have applied for heir-ship on 27.5.1974 vide entry No.1099 but it was also rejected on 7.9.1974 that the land was available for grazing of animals. It is also submitted that though record is not available of proceedings and order dated 28.5.1975 all other relevant record from 1975 onwards including notification and orders passed under consolidation proceedings undertaken in accordance with law reveal that subject land was vested into Government from 1975 onwards. Learned AGP has also relied on various panchanama, affidavits produced on record to show that at no point of time even name of the petitioners reflected in the column of occupiers and it is only a land for pasture. Therefore, it is submitted that proceedings undertaken by the petitioners for about delay of 33 years rightly rejected by the authorities below namely, Dy. Collector in the order dated 31.3.2009 and confirmed in revision by revisional authority vide order impugned.
5. Upon perusal of the record, proceedings and submissions, it is no doubt true that record and proceedings and orders passed on 28.5.1975 are not available but all the relevant records examined and recorded by revenue authorities namely, Dy. Collector and revisional authority reveal that after the order dated 28.5.1975 was passed, immediately entry was recorded being 1240 dated 15.9.1975 and throughout the old record reflect the name of the Government as an owner and occupier and the land being used as a pasture land even other record also reveal, for which, no doubt can be raised that for 35 years the land in question is with State Government upon vesting and such findings of fact so recorded by the authorities below based on revenue records and other relevant affidavits, panchanamas orders and failure on the part of legal heirs to get the entry recorded immediately upon death of their father in 1972 collectively make out no case warranting any interference in the orders impugned passed.
6. This petition being devoid of merit is rejected. Notice discharged. Stay granted earlier stands vacated.
(ANANT S.DAVE, J.) SMITA Page 4 of 4