Gujarat High Court
Hitesh Ratanlal Jain (Partner Of Rajvi ... vs State Of Gujarat on 27 February, 2023
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3149 of 2023
===============================================================
HITESH RATANLAL JAIN (PARTNER OF RAJVI DEVELOPERS)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
SHRENIK R JASANI(9486) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,4.1,4.2,4.3,4.4,4.5,4.6,4.7,5,6,7
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 27/02/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vimal A. Purohit for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent No.1.
2. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :
Page 1 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined "(B)YOUR LORDSHIP'S may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and a writ of prohibition or any other writ, order or direction against respondent no. 2 herein namely, City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad (West) prohibiting him from proceeding with case no. RTS/ Appeal/Case No. 152/2021 (Annexure A) and be further pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the proceeding with case no. RTS/ Appeal/Case No. 152/2021 (Annexure A) pending before respondent no.2 i.e. Ld. City Deputy Collector (West), Ahmedabad;
(C)YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari quashing and setting aside order dated 11.1.2023 passed by the Ld. City Deputy Collector, (West), Ahmedabad in case No. RTS/ Appeal/Case No.152/2021 (Annexure A);
(D) Pending hearing and Final Disposal of this Special Civil Application, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further proceedings of case no. RTS/ Appeal/Case No. 152/2021 (Annexure A) pending before respondent no.2 i.e. Ld. City Deputy Collector (West), Ahmedabad ;
(E) Any other and further relief that may deem fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice."
3.1. The brief facts of the case are that Page 2 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined according to the petitioners, they are bona fide purchaser of the land (in question) by the registered sale deed executed in the year 2017.
3.2. The land bearing Survey No.632/1-2 paiki admeasuring 2511.5 sq.mtrs. situated at village-Vadaj, Taluka-Sabarmati, District- Ahmedabad was originally owned and occupied by one Girdharlal Bhagvandas Patel and Maniben w/ o Shankarbhai Naranbhai.
3.3. An agreement to sale was executed on 20th November, 1989 in favour of Ratnabhai Merabhai Bharvad and Ketan Rameshchandra Patel i.e. respondent Nos.4 and 5. According to the petitioners, entire sale consideration was paid by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the original owners.
Page 3 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined 3.4. Girdharbhai Bhagvandas Patel expired on 18th June, 1992. Thereafter, the sale deed was executed in favour of Ratnabhai Merabhai Bharvad and Ketanbhai Rameshchandra Patel by the Power of Attorney Holder Ramanbhai Shankarbhai Patel of late Girdharbhai Bhagvandas Patel and Maniben w/o Shankarbhai Naranbhai on the basis of irrevocable general Power of Attorney executed in favour of the Ramanbhai Shankarbhai Patel by late Girdharbhai Bhagvandas Patel on 20th November, 1989.
3.5. On the basis of the sale deed executed on 20th January, 2001, the Mutation Entry No.18898 was made in the Revenue Record, Village Form no.6 with regard to the land in question and was certified on 01.10.2001. It Page 4 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined appears that thereafter the land was sold to one Mr.Umangbhai Haribhai Thakkar on 1st September, 2006 and Mutation Entry No.20054 was mutated and certified on 16.11.2006. The petitioners thereafter purchased the land from Umangbhai Haribhai Thakkar by registered sale deed dated 6th November, 2017 being the partners of one M/s. Rajvi Developers. 3.6. The respondent No.2-Deputy Collector issued a notice dated 17th December, 2022 upon the legal heirs of late Ratnabhai Merabhai Bharvad, Ketan Rameshchandra Patel and Arvid Girdharbhai Patel intimating the hearing of the Appeal Case No.152 of 2021 filed by the Circle Case Officer under Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 with regard to the Entry No.18898. The respondent No.2- Deputy Collector by order dated 11.01.2023 Page 5 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined considered that the Entry No.18898 was mutated on the basis of the sale deed which is admittedly executed by the Power of Attorney Holder of late Girdharbhai Bhagvanbhai Patel on 20th January, 2001 though the executor of Power of Attorney Holder Girdharbhai Bhagvanbhai Patel expired on 18.06.1992 and ordered to condone the delay of twenty years in filing the Appeal by the Mamlatdar on behalf of the Government challenging the Mutation Entry No.18898.
3.7. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Deputy Collector has preferred this petition.
4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Vimal Purohit for the petitioners submitted that the Deputy Collector could not have condoned the delay Page 6 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined without there being any application to condone the delay by the appellant-Mamlatdar for the Government. It was submitted that the petitioners have not been given any opportunity of hearing by the Deputy Collector before passing the impugned order to condone the delay of twenty years.
4.2. It was also submitted that the notice dated 17.12.2022 is without jurisdiction as such notice is nothing but a show-cause notice of taking into consideration the entry No.18898 and such notice could not have been issued after the delay of twenty years contrary to the settled legal position. 4.3. Learned advocate Mr.Purohit relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in case of Bharatbhai Naranbhai Vegda and Others Versus State of Page 7 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined Gujarat and Others reported in 2016 (2) GLR 1021.
4.4. Reliance was placed on the following observations of the Division Bench :
"12. We may first consider the question for interference to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There cannot be second opinion on the aspect that if two views are possible and the learned Single Judge has taken one view, the Division Bench of this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Letters Patent would be loathe to interfere and may not entertain the appeal, but in a case where only one view was possible or that well settled legal position is not considered, which goes to the root of the matter for the jurisdiction of the authority, such would be an appropriate case for interference for exercise of the jurisdiction under the Letters Patent. Examining the case on the said aspects, we find that as per the above referred decisions of the Apex Court, the limitation provided for initiation of the action or the consideration of the reasonable period for initiation of the action or the bar operating of delay for initiation of the action are jurisdictional aspects on the power of Page 8 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined the authority which has initiated the action. If as per the well settled principles of law, the bar of delay operates against the exercise of the jurisdiction or that the initiation of the action is beyond reasonable period as per the well settled principles of law, the action can be said as without jurisdiction. If an action is without jurisdiction, as observed by the Apex Court in the above referred decision in the case of State of Punjab (supra), the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be maintained and the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked. If the action is decided on the ground of jurisdiction and found to be without jurisdiction by the Court while undertaking judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, the only view possible is that of the action without jurisdiction. If the action was without jurisdiction, we do not see that it would fall in the arena of discretion to be considered while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. We may record that the contention is not based on the conduct on the part of the petitioners which may lead the Court to decline the interference but the contention is on the ground that two views were not possible as against the settled legal position on the point of reasonable period and the delay for initiation of the action. Hence, we find that it is a fit case for interference with the Page 9 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined order passed by the learned Single Judge and it cannot be said to be outside the jurisdiction of the appellate power of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent as sought to be canvassed.
20. In any case, as the notice could be said as without jurisdiction on the ground of delay and laches as per the well settled principles of law, we do not propose to express any final view on the aspect of Sec. 75 of the Ordinance. In any case, examining the matter on the either of the Situation, the action of issuance of show-cause notice can be said to be without jurisdiction, and hence, the petitioner would be justified in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution."
4.5. Learned advocate Mr.Purohit submitted that the petitioners are the bona-fide purchasers of the land (in question) and therefore the Deputy Collector could not have condoned the delay in preferring the Appeal by the Mamlatdar challenging the Entry No.18898 on the basis of the sale-deed dated dated 20th January, 2001 after more than twenty years. It Page 10 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined was submitted that the impugned action of the respondent-Authority is without jurisdiction and therefore this Writ Petition is maintainable and is required to be entertained in view of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Bharatbhai Naranbhai Vegda (Supra).
4.6. Learned advocate Mr.Purohit also referred to and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Ragho Singh Versus Mohan Singh and Others reported on 05.04.2000 in Civil Appeal No.4985 of 1997 reported in 2001 AIR SCW 2351 to submit that when the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not filed for condonation of delay, there is no jurisdiction in the Additional Collector to allow the Appeal. 4.7. Reliance was also placed on Sections Page 11 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined 205 and 206 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (for short 'the Code') to point out that the Appeal challenging the Entry No.18898 could not have been entertained after the expiry of sixty days or ninety days as the case may be and such Appeal after period of limitation can be admitted only if the appellant satisfies the Office or the State Government that he had sufficient cause for not presenting the Appeal within such period. 4.8. It was therefore submitted that the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Deputy Collector is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5.1. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayswal submitted that there is an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 108(6) of the Code if the Page 12 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Deputy Collector to prefer an Appeal/Revision before the Collector. It was submitted that in view of the alternative efficacious remedy to challenge the impugned order to condone the delay passed by the Deputy Collector this petition should not be entertained. 5.2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayswal in support of his submissions relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Nivedita Sharma Versus Cellular Operators Association of Indian and Others reported in (2011) 14 SCC 337 wherein the Apex Court has held as under :
"11. We have considered the respective arguments/submissions. There cannot be any dispute that the power of the High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of Page 13 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by parliamentary legislation - L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261. However, it is one thing to say that in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order passed by or action taken by the State and/or its agency/instrumentality or any public authority or order passed by a quasi- judicial body/authority, and it is an altogether different thing to say that each and every petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution must be entertained by the High Court as a matter of course ignoring the fact that the aggrieved person has an effective alternative remedy. Rather, it is settled law that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.
12. In Thansingh Nathmal v.
Superintendent of Taxes AIR 1964 SC 1419, this Court adverted to the rule of self-imposed restraint that writ petition will not be entertained if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and observed:
"The High Court does not therefore Page 14 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up."
13. In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433, this court observed:
"It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes, J. in Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford in the following passage:
'... There are three classes of Page 15 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined cases in which a liability may be established founded upon a statute ....... But there is a third class, viz., where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it. .... The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to.' The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. Ltd 1935 AC 532 and Secy. of State v. Mask and Co. (1939-40) 67 IA 222 : AIR 1940 PC 105. It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout.
The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine."
14. In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 536, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. (speaking for the majority of the larger Bench) observed: Page 16 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined "77. ...So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226
- or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 - is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising the power under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment."
15. In the judgments relied upon by Shri Vaidyanathan, which, by and large, reiterate the proposition laid down in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar AIR 1969 SC 556, it has been held that an alternative remedy is not a bar to the entertaining of writ petition filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order under challenge is wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of the statute is under challenge.
16. It can, thus, be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy. Page 17 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined However, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes (supra) and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for rederssal of grievance still hold field."
5.3. Referring to the above, it was submitted that the petition be dismissed on the ground of having alternative efficacious remedy.
5.4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayswal further submitted that the Entry No.18898 is based upon the sale-deed executed in the year 2001 on the basis of the Power of Attorney executed in the year 1989. It was submitted that Girdharlal Patel expired in the year 1992 and therefore the Power of Attorney executed by him also would come to an end on Page 18 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined his death and therefore the sale-deed executed in the year 2001 is a fraudulent registration of sale-deed and the mutation entry based upon such fraud is liable to be cancelled and therefore the Appeal before the Deputy Collector on basis of such entry based upon the fraudulent sale-deed is required to be filed and for that no period of limitation would be applicable. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of A.V.Papayya Sastry and Others versus Government of A.P and Others reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayswal referred to and relied upon the following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :
"21. Now, it is well settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. Before Page 19 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed;
"Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal".
22. It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud onthe Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order -by the first Court or by the final Court-has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings.
23. In the leading case of Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley Lord Denning observed:
"No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud."
24. In Duchess of Kingstone, Smith's Leading Cases, 13th Edn., p.644, explaining the nature of fraud, de Grey, C.J. stated that though a judgment would be res judicata and not impeachable from within, it might be impeachable from without. In other words, though it is not permissible to show that the court was 'mistaken', it Page 20 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined might be shown that it was 'misled'. There is an essential distinction between mistake and trickery. The clear implication of the distinction is that an action to set aside a judgment cannot be brought on the ground that it has been decided wrongly, namely, that on the merits, the decision was one which should not have been rendered, but it can be set aside, if the court was imposed upon or tricked into giving the judgment.
25. It has been said; Fraud and justice never dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant); or fraud and deceit ought to benefit none (fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent).
26. Fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing some unfair or undeserved benefit by taking undue advantage of another. In fraud one gains at the loss of another. Even most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam. The principle of 'finality of litigation' cannot be stretched to the extent of an absurdity that it can be utilized as an engine of oppression by dishonest and fraudulent litigants.
27. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu V. Jagannath this Court had an occasion to consider the doctrine of fraud and the Page 21 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined effect thereof on the judgment obtained by a party. In that case, one A by aregistered deed, relinquished all his rights in the suit property in favour of C who sold the property to B. Without disclosing that fact, A filed a suit for possession against B and obtained preliminary decree. During the pendency of an application for final decree, B came to know about the fact of release deed by A in favour of C. He, therefore, contended that the decree was obtained by playing fraud on the court and was a nullity. The trial court upheld the contention and dismissed the application. The High Court, however, set aside the order of the trial court, observing that "there was no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". B approached this Court."
5.5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayswal has also referred to and relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Patel Kantibhai Hargovindbhai Versus State of Gujarat reported in 2001 (0) AIJEL-HC 209246. Reliance was placed on the following observation : Page 22 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined "9. After having taken into consideration the aforesaid facts, which are no longer in controversy, it becomes evident and explicit that power of attorney holder Bhupendra Bhagwanbhai Patel with knowledge had signed on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 - deceased Kantibhai Hargovindbhai Patel and had fled the affidavit. It is a settled proposition of law that the power of attorney granted to a person would cease to be operative from the very moment the granter has died, It is, really, unfortunate that in proceed ngs before the Court the tendency of forgery and filing false affidavit in the name of dead person and that too by power of attorney holder is increasing, which is undoubtedly a very undesirable unhealthy syndrome for the judicial system. Since we propose to pass order directing the Registrar of this Court to launch the prosecution, we desist ourselves from making further remarks and observations so as to see that the vision of the Court which is ultimately going to try the criminal case may, not unnecessarily influenced or colored.
Bearing in mind and with great restraint, but dutifully we prima-facie find that there is a disclosure of an offence punishable under Sec. 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, keeping in mind the statutory mandate of Section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code, we hereby direct the Registrar or his authorized officer of this Court to launch the prosecution by filing a Page 23 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined criminal complaint in the Court of competent Magistrate and report to us expeditiously on or before 10/09/2001. He is further directed to keep the Court posted about the subsequent proceedings that may be taken up before the competent Criminal Court." 5.6. It was therefore submitted that even on the facts of the case, no interference is required to be made in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector condoning the delay in preferring the Appeal challenging the Entry No.18898 by the Mamlatdar on the basis of fraudulent sale-deed executed in the year 2001 in name of a dead person.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, it is not in dispute that there is an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioners to challenge the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector condoning the delay in preferring the Appeal Page 24 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined by the Mamlatdar on behalf of the Government on the basis of the fraudulent sale-deed in name of a dead person.
7. It is also not in dispute that Girdharlal Bhagvandas Patel expired on 18.06.1992 and thereafter on the basis of the Power of Attorney executed by him in the year 1989 in favour of Rameshchandra Patel, the sale-deed is executed on 20th January, 2001 and therefore the entry mutated on basis of such sale-deed is prima-facie liable to be cancelled and in view of such fraudulent sale- deed, the Deputy Collector was justified in condoning the delay of twenty years as the delay would not come in way of a fraudulent transaction as such transaction is void-ab- initio and nullity as held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision of A.V.Papayya Sastry(Supra).
Page 25 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3149/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023 undefined
8. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) PALAK Page 26 of 26 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:14:17 IST 2023