Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Bhikhabhai Patel vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & 7 on 12 March, 2014
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
C/SCA/15100/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15100 of 2013
================================================================
RAMESHBHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL....Petitioner
Versus
GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL & 7....Respondents
================================================================
Appearance:
J K GANDHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner.
JAIVIK UDAY BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner.
MILAN R MARUTI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner.
MR PM LAKHANI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner.
MRS R P LAKHANI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner.
MR RAKESH PATEL, LD.A.G.P. for the Respondent No.2.
MR SHITAL R PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No.8
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 12/03/2014
ORAL ORDER
1. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
2. By way of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, as under:
"7.(a) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to admit this petition;
(b) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to allow this petition by way of issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by Page 1 of 6 C/SCA/15100/2013 ORDER quashing and setting aside (i) the order dated 10-7-2013 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.BA.369 of 2006; (ii) order dated 16-9-2006 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (Appeal) Ahmedabad in Tenancy Appeal No.96/2003 and
(iii) order dated 24-6-2002 passed by Mamlatdar and ALT in Tenancy Case No.105/1999 and No.264/2001;
(c) During Pendency and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order dated 10-7-2013 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.BA.369 of 2006;
(d) To pass any other appropriate and just order/s;"
3. Brief facts arise from the record of the case, are as under:
That father of the petitioner namely Bhikhabhai Bechardas Patel sold the agricultural property of his ownership to Lalbhai Sukhabhai Rabari and deceased Mahadevbhai Dhimarbhai Rabari, Varvabhai Jaimalbhai Rabari and Taljabhai Madhabhai in the year 1981. Mamlatdar and ALT, Dascroi initiated the proceedings u/s.84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act") for violation of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and passed adverse order against the private respondents. The said decision was challenged before the Deputy Collector by way of filing an Page 2 of 6 C/SCA/15100/2013 ORDER appeal being Tenancy Appeal/20/90, which was dismissed vide order dated 09/07/1991. The said order of the Deputy Collector was challenged by the private respondents by way of filing Revision Application being TEN/BA/953/1991 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. By judgement and order dated 03/03/1999, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal quashed the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and Mamlatdar and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar and ALT for fresh consideration.
Subsequent to the remand, Mamlatdar and ALT, Dascroi by its order dated 24/06/2002 held that private respondents became agriculturists after following due procedure under the Tenancy Act and there is no breach of section 63 of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, proceedings initiated under Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act was dropped. The said decision of the Mamlatdar and ALT was challenged by the father of the petitioner before Deputy Collector by way of filing Tenancy Appeal No.96 of 2003. By order dated 16/09/2006, the said Appeal preferred by the father of the petitioner was dismissed and the order of Mamlatdar and ALT was confirmed. Both the orders were challenged by the petitioner before Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad by way of filing Revision Application No.TEN.BA.369/2006 and by judgement and order dated 10/07/2013, the revision application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT and Deputy Collector, by which, the proceeding initiated u/s.84-C was dropped, were confirmed. Hence, this petition.
4. Mr.P.M.Lakhani, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the orders passed by all the authorities below are contrary to the provisions of law. He has Page 3 of 6 C/SCA/15100/2013 ORDER further submitted that when the land was sold, private respondents were not agriculturist and, therefore, sale deed executed between his father and private respondents, is not valid under the provisions of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, the land ought to have been forfeited by the State Government. He further submits that the transfer of agricultural land is barred u/s.63 of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, the authority ought to have declared the land wasted in the State Government. He further submits that the authority has committed breach in dropping the proceedings initiated under Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act.
5. Mr.Shital Patel, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.8 has vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that the petitioner, who is son of the person, from whom, private respondents have purchased the land, cannot now challenge the transaction (sale deed) when his father had pocked money way back in the year 1981. He has further submitted that the seller cannot challenge the sale deed executed by him, even if it is void in the eye of law. The petitioner cannot take benefit of its own wrong. He has further submitted that the State Government has not challenged any of the orders passed by the authorities below. In support of his above submissions, he has relied upon the judgements delivered by this Court in the case of Gulabbhai Ravjibhai Patel V/s. Badriprasad Vithalrao Bende & Ors. delivered on 11/04/2011 in Letters Patent Appeal No.2281 of 2010; in the case of Sunderlal Bhanabhai Bhagat & Ors. V/s. State of Gujarat & Ors. delivered on 09/01/2012 in Letters Patent Appeal No.2126 of 2011 and in the case of Dashrathlal M. Patel - legal heirs of Maganbhai Page 4 of 6 C/SCA/15100/2013 ORDER Joitaram & Ors. V/s. State of Gujarat & Ors. delivered on 14/08/2012 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1875 of 2007.
6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. I have also perused the orders passed by the authorities below. It is an undisputed fact that the father of the petitioner had sold the property in question way back in the year 1981 after receiving price of the land at market rate. The authorities have declared the private respondents as "tenants" under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Declaring the private respondents as "tenants", have not been challenged neither by the petitioner nor authorities have taken decision in suo motu revision and has quashed and set aside such decision.
7. In case of Dashrathlal M. Patel (supra), Division Bench of this Court has held that while dealing with the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act,1947 has held that the person, who sales the land cannot challenge its own action/ wrong i.e. selling the property after receiving consideration on the ground that the sale was void. In case of Gulabbhai Ravjibhai Patel (supra), Division Bench of this Court held on the same line while dealing with the transaction under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act like the present case. Similar is the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sunderlal Bhanabhai Bhagat (supra). Hence, I am of the opinion that the present petition is meritless and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Page 5 of 6 C/SCA/15100/2013 ORDER[A.J.DESAI,J.] *dipti Page 6 of 6