Gujarat High Court
Keshubhai Virbhanbhai Vala vs The Special Secretary (Appeals) ... on 26 April, 2022
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11744 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
KESHUBHAI VIRBHANBHAI VALA
Versus
THE SPECIAL SECRETARY (APPEALS) REVENUE DEPARTMENT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PERCY KAVINA, Senior Advocate with MR VIRAL R GURJAR(10556) for
the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNJ KANARA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 to 4
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, Advocate General with MR G H VIRK(7392) for the
Respondent(s) No. 6
MR MIHIR JOSHI, Senior Advocate with MR AMAR D MITHANI(484) for the
Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 26/04/2022
CAV JUDGMENT
1 By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.7.2021 passed by the Page 1 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department - respondent No.1 in Revision Application No. MVV/JMN/Gir/11/2021.
1.1 The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 30.9.2021 passed by respondent No.1 on an application for speaking to minutes preferred by the respondent No.5.
1.2 The petitioner has further prayed for declaration that the impugned order dated 8.7.2021 is vitiated on the ground of locus of respondent No.5 and has further prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.9.2021 whereby leave to appeal is granted in favour of respondent No.5. The petitioner has also prayed for declaration that the application preferred by respondent No.1 before respondent No.1 was not maintainable on the grounds of locus, estoppel and on the ground that no procedure is prescribed under the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Rules framed thereunder for preferring application for speaking to minutes.
Page 2 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022
C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 2 As the main matter being Revision Application No.MVV/JMN/Gir/11/2021 is pending before the respondent No.1, an agreement was arrived at between the parties during the course of hearing that this Court may only limit itself to determine the aspects about locus of the respondent No.5 and whether any application at the instance of respondent No.5 before the respondent No.1 is maintainable or not while examining the impugned orders dated 8.7.2021 and 30.09.2021 passed by the respondent No.1. Hence, in view of the aforesaid agreement, while deciding this petition, this Court would not touch the merit of the matter.
2.1 Considering the fact that by way of this petition what is sought to be examined is the limited aspect about locus of respondent No.5 and maintainability of the application filed by respondent No.5 seeking leave to appeal before the respondent No.1 while examining the impugned orders dated 8.7.2021 and 30.9.2021, with the consent of the parties, the matter was extensively heard for final hearing on 18.1.2022 and 19.1.2022.
Page 3 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022
C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 3 Issue rule. Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP waives notice of rule on behalf of State respondent Nos.1 to 4, Mr. Amar Mithani, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.5 and Mr. G.H.Virk, learned advocate waives notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.6.
4 Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kavina with Mr. Viral Gurjar, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Amar Mithani, learned advocate for respondent No.5 and Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General with Mr. G.H.Virk, learned advocate for respondent No.6.
5 The case of the petitioner is that two parcels of lands bearing survey Nos.633 and 637 of village Sarkhadi, Taluka Kodinar, District Gir Somnath (originally Junagadh district) came to be seized by the State under the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 for which a mutation entry No.923 Page 4 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 dated 16.12.1965 was recorded in the revenue record. 5.1 As at that time, the petitioner was landless agricultural labour, land bearing survey No.637 paiki admeasuring 11-19 Acres-Gunthas as well as land admeasuring 5-10 Acres-Gunthas of survey No.633 of Village Sarkhadi, Taluka Kodinar, District Gir Kodinar (originally Junagadh district) were allotted to the petitioner on `santhani' basis. Similarly 17-00 Acres-Gunthas of the land bearing No.637 was allotted to brother of the petitioner viz. Bogha Govind by the Assistant Commissioner, Rajula vide order No.996 dated 25.3.1969 against the payment of occupancy price which was quantified at Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly, a revenue entry No.1303 dated 15.12.1970 was mutated in the revenue record. 5.2 It is further the case of the petitioner that the land in question was allotted to the petitioner on `santhani' basis along with his brother Bogha Govind and since then he is in possession of the land. Both of them have paid the amount of occupancy price and pursuant to the payment of Page 5 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 occupancy price, name of Bogha Govind continued to appear as occupant in the revenue record, but the name of the petitioner was not reflecting in the column of occupant, but was reflecting in the column of cultivator. Therefore, in the year 2016 the petitioner requested the revenue authorities to mutate his name in the revenue record as occupant. Pursuant to the aforesaid request, the authority asked the petitioner to produce the receipt of the amount paid by the petitioner in the year 1969 towards occupancy price. As the petitioner was not in possession of the aforesaid receipt of payment of occupancy price, he could not produce the same and instead made a request to the revenue authority by showing his willingness to pay the occupancy price along with penal interest by preferring an application dated 2.5.2017, which was addressed to the Mamlatdar Kodinar. However, the Mamlatdar, Kodinar rejected the said application vide order dated 6.5.2017 by observing that since the petitioner has not paid the occupancy price at the time of allotment of the land in question, the order allotting the land to the petitioner automatically Page 6 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 stood cancelled and at this juncture the occupancy price cannot be accepted.
5.3 Once again the petitioner preferred an application dated 2.2.2018 to the Mamlatdar stating the circumstances and difficulties faced by him. One more application was preferred by the petitioner dated 7.8.2018 which was addressed to the District Collector, Gir Somnath wherein he categorically stated that at the relevant point of time, the occupancy price though was already paid, the receipt was not in his possession as the same was not traceable and the petitioner has shown his willingness to make payment of occupancy price once again for the second time. In that application, the petitioner also made reference of similarly situated persons, who were facing similar circumstances and yet their cases were considered positively. 5.4 As the petitioner did not receive any positive response from the authority, the petitioner made representations up to the level of the Minister, Revenue Department, Gandhinagar and as nothing turned Page 7 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 in his favour, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.18330 of 2018 and challenged the order dated 6.5.2017 passed by the Mamlatdar, Kodinar. However, the said petition was withdrawn for availing alternative remedy.
5.5 Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the order dated 6.5.2017 before the Deputy Collector, which was numbered as RRT/Delay/Case No.17 of 2019 and the Deputy Collector vide order dated 8.3.2019 rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground of delay. 5.6 The petitioner challenged the said order dated 8.3.2019 passed by the Deputy Collector by filing revision application before the District Collector, Gir Somnath which was numbered as Land/3/Appeal/4/2019 and ultimately the Collector vide order dated 24.9.2019 remanded the case to the Deputy Collector for examining 3 aspects viz. [1] whether any breach has been committed by the petitioner, [2] whether the occupancy price was paid by the petitioner, and [3] whether the petitioner was Page 8 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 in possession of the land and further directed the Deputy Collector to decide the matter afresh in light of the aforesaid 3 aspects.
5.7 Before the Deputy Collector, the case was numbered as Remand Case No.Misc. Remand Case No.55/2019 and called for report from the Mamlatdar, Kodinar in respect of the aforesaid three aspects. The Mamlatdar, Kodinar submitted a report dated 24.12.2019 to the Deputy Collector, Una stating that, [1] evidence about payment of occupancy price is not traceable, [2] no evidence about breach of condition could be established, and [3] possession of the land in question is with the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid report submitted by the Mamlatdar, the Deputy Collector rejected the revision application preferred by the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 6.5.2017 passed by the Mamlatdar, Kodinar vide order dated 20.1.2020. However, in the order the date is wrongly typed as 20.1.2019.
5.8 The aforesaid order dated 20.1.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector was once again challenged by Page 9 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 the petitioner by preferring an appeal before the Collector, Gir Somnath, which was numbered as Land Appeal/2/2020 and the Collector, Gir Somnath vide order dated 17.12.2020 quashed and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Una dated 20.1.2020 in Remand Case No.55 of 2019 as well as order dated 6.5.2017 passed by the Mamlatdar, Kodinar and directed the authorities to collect the occupancy price with penal interest as per the Government Resolution dated 19.2.2018.
5.9 It is the case of the petitioner that despite the order dated 17.12.2020, the Mamlatdar, Kodinar declined to accept the occupancy price. However, ultimately, the payment of occupancy price with penalty was accepted and after carrying out necessary procedure, the order of District Collector was implemented and a mutation entry No.6961 came to be mutated to that effect and was certified on 17.4.2021. Pursuant to that name of the petitioner came to be reflected as occupant in the revenue record being village form No.7/12.
Page 10 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 5.10 After a period of six months of implementation of order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the District Collector, Gir Somnath, the petitioner received a notice dated 28.6.2020 from the respondent No.1 wherein it was stated that the respondent No.5 has preferred revision application challenging the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the District Collector, Gir Somnath and as per the notice, the hearing was scheduled on 6.7.2021. Whereas, the petitioner received notice on 7.7.2021 i.e. the next day after the hearing was scheduled. On inquiry, the petitioner found that in absence of the petitioner without verifying whether notice was served upon the petitioner or not, the respondent No.1 passed an order dated 8.7.2021 staying the implementation, execution and operation of the order passed by the District Collector and all other subsequent proceedings. According to the petitioner, when the petitioner got memo of revision application, the petitioner found that an application for leave to appeal challenging the order dated 17.12.2020 was preferred by respondent No.5. It was alleged by the petitioner that respondent No.5 is a company having Page 11 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 immense political influence and its wings were spread all over India since last several decades. In that application for leave to appeal, the respondent No.5 prayed for a relief to grant leave to appeal and to grant injunction. According to petitioner, though the order dated 17.12.2020 was challenged, same was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay and even without considering the aspect of delay, the respondent No.1 straightaway passed order staying further proceedings till final disposal of revision application.
5.11 According to the petitioner, an application for speaking to minutes was filed on 17.8.2021 and thought the petitioner opposed the said speaking to minutes, vide order dated 30.9.2021, the respondent No.1 allowed the application for speaking to minutes and also granted leave to appeal in favour of respondent No.5.
5.12 Hence, being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid two orders dated 8.7.2021 and 30.9.2021 the petitioner has preferred Page 12 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 this petition on the ground that, [1] the respondent No.5 has no locus to challenged the order dated 17.12.2020, [2] there is no procedure of speaking to minutes as per the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Rules framed thereunder and [3] such application at the instance of respondent No.5 is not maintainable. 6 The case of the respondent No.5 is that respondent No.5 is a company incorporated on 1.7.2008 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and it is holder of letter of intent dated 25.4.2008 for the development of Simar Port as an "All-Weather Direct Berthing Port". The said Letter of Intent is issued by the respondent No.6 to respondent No.5 pursuant to the bid of M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. accepted by the Ports and Transport Department of Government of Gujarat for the purpose of development of Simar Port. The aforesaid port is being developed by respondent No.5 as Multi-user, Multi-Cargo port along with necessary infrastructure and for that respondent No.6 shall acquire the land and the same will be allotted to the respondent No.5 on lease. The development of the port includes construction of 4500 Page 13 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 meters length break water and berths to handle 15 MMTPA cargo.
6.1 The above project is a part of development of Green Field Port and as per the Memorandum of Incorporation of the company, the object is to own, lease, sub-lease, operate, establish, build, construct, acquire, maintain, conduct, control, manage, equip and enlarge ports, wharves, jetties, embankments, reclamation, water works, water rights, marine related infrastructure, etc. The respondent No.6 granted NOC for acquisition of private lands for port at Villages Chhara and Sarkhadi as back as in April, 2010 and June, 2014 and as the project is of larger public interest and national importance, the Commissioner of Industries granted prior permission in September, 2010 and July, 2014 for purchasing private lands for bonafide industrial purpose for the lands at villages Chhara and Sarkhadi admeasuring Hectares 361.58.55 Square Meters. The aforesaid details are given by the respondent to demonstrate that the project is a large scale project backed by the State of Gujarat and having larger public Page 14 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 interest and national importance.
6.2 That as the respondent No.5 was required to acquire lands for development of port project, Mamlatdar Kodinar submitted a report to the Deputy Collector, Veraval on 30.9.2010 and on the basis of of site inspection stated that Talati-cum-Mantri carried out site inspection on 16.8.2010 wherein it is found that there was an encroachment over the land bearing revenue survey Nos.633 and 637 paiki 2 of Village Sarkhadi by one Rambhai Boghabhai, who is some one else but not the present petitioner and it was also found that he is cultivating the government land encroached by him. The respondent No.6 made a request for advance possession and acquisition of the said land to the office of District Collector with respect to the land in question as the same was required for development of the port project. However, the District Collector, Junagadh vide letter dated 28.12.2010 informed the respondent No.6 about the encroachment on the said land by local person and due to encroachment, the aforesaid request was not considered positively and Mamlatdar, Kodinar was Page 15 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 directed to take action in respect of the encroachment over the subject land which was Government land as per the record. Right from 2010 vide communications dated 28.12.2010, 18.12.2019 and 19.3.2020 office of the Collector directed the Deputy Collector, Una to verify the record and inquire about the land in question and to send the proposal / report with intimation to Gujarat Maritime Board in respect of the action taken.
6.3 The respondent No.5 has stated that respondent No.6 has already challenged the orders dated 17.12.2020, 15.2.2021, etc. passed by the Collector, Gir Somnath before the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department by way of Revision Application on or around 27.7.2021, which is still pending. The proposed investment for development of the port would be around Rs.5,000 Crores for which during the course of Vibrant Gujarat Summit, 2011, Memorandum of Understanding came to be signed between Gujarat Maritime Board and M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. for development of green field port at Village Chhara. In view of the Memorandum of Understanding Page 16 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 arrived at between the State Government and M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. even the Gujarat Coastal Zone Management Authority recommended the development of the port project vide letter dated 26.4.2013. 6.4 Vide letter dated 15/17.10.2013, respondent No.6 approached the Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat inter alia pointing that for port project as Letter of Intent has already been issued to respondent No.5 as per the Build Own Operate and Transfer (for short, `BOOT') Policy, the acquisition of the land is the responsibility of the Gujarat Maritime Board and as survey Nos.633 and 637 are Government lands, for acquisition of those lands, necessary exercise be undertaken. The project has also been cleared by the Ministry of Environment and Forest. That time and again such request was reiterated and reminders were sent to the authorities by Gujarat Maritime Board as well as the respondent No.5 to the State Government including the District Collector, Gir Somnath to expedite the process of allotment of advance possession of the lands. Page 17 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 6.5 In fact, a tripartite agreement was signed between the Government of Gujarat, Gujarat Maritime Board and respondent No.5 on 29.1.2015 and as per the said agreement, after a period of 30 years, the port in question to be handed over to the Government. Thereafter, pursuant to the tripartite agreement even Government of Gujarat issued notification dated 19.2.2015 and carved out the port limits of Chhara Port under the provisions of Section 4(5) of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 and as respondent No.5 has obtained all necessary permissions for undertaking construction of the port related to infrastructure facilities and has completed all the formalities, the respondent No.6 granted authorization / construction permission to the respondent No.5 under Section 35(1) of the Gujarat Maritime Board Act on 18.10.2017. 6.6 The respondent No.5 has stated the aforesaid facts in its affidavit to demonstrate that the project which is being undertaken by it is a project of very large scale and there is involvement of the State Government as the State Government has entered into Memorandum of Understanding with the Page 18 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 respondent No.5 and ultimately after 30 years after the concession period is over, the port will be handed over to the Government only.
6.7 In respect of the other aspects, it was submitted by respondent No.5 that though the Assistant Collector, Rajula passed order dated 25.3.1969 whereby the land bearing survey Nos.637 paiki and 633 of village Sarkhadi were allotted / granted to the father of the petitioner but father of the petitioner at no point of time made any payment towards occupancy price. Since other beneficiaries made necessary payment of occupancy price they were put in possession of the land and hence their names were started reflecting in revenue records. The name of father of the petitioner has never been reflected in the revenue records since last 50 years. Though order dated 25.3.1969 was passed, for the next 25 years during which original allottee of the land i.e. father of the petitioner Virbhan Vala was alive and died on 15.1.1992, no such application was preferred by him during his life time and it was only after his death i.e. after further 23 years, the petitioner for Page 19 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 the first time preferred an application in respect of payment of occupancy price, which came to be rejected vide order dated 6.5.2017. Though time and again various authorities rejected the applications made by the petitioner for acceptance of occupancy price, those applications were rightly rejected and ultimately the Collector vide order dated 17.12.2020 allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and quashed and set aside the well reasoned order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 20.1.2020 and directed the Mamlatdar, Kodinar to take necessary action as per the observations made in order dated 17.12.2020 whereby the Mamlatdar, Kodinar directed to accept the occupancy price with interest in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 24.4.2018 and 1.11.2003 and in accordance with Government Circular dated 19.2.2018. Pursuant to which the Mamlatdar, Kodinar though expressed his inability to accept the occupancy price, once again the Collector, Gir Somnath directed to collect the amount on 15.2.2020 and to hand over the possession of the land to the petitioner.
Page 20 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 6.8 It is the case of respondent No.5 that time and again the applications for acquisition of the land by and on behalf of respondent No.5 were made. Those applications could not be considered only on the ground that the land in question was encroached upon. Thought the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector time and again tried to give clear and correct picture to the Collector, the Collector, Gir Somnath by overlooking all the material, issued directions in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 17.12.2020, which has in turn resulted in condoning delay of 50 years in executing the order dated 25.3.1969, which was not complied with until 17.12.2020, the date on which the Collector passed order in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.5 has alleged that though the project is of more than Rs.8,000 Crores, the Collector, Gir Somnath has committed an error by giving priority to an individual over a project of national importance and larger public interest, which is backed by the State Government. It is the case of the respondent No.5 that possession of the land is with Ram Bogha Vala, who is son of Bogha Govind Vala, who was allotted the land pursuant to order dated Page 21 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 25.3.1969 and even as per the 7/12 abstract, the possession of the land was with Bogha Govind and not with the petitioner, and therefore, the say of the petitioner that he is cultivating the land is factually incorrect. The case of respondent No.5 is that though the respondent No.5 is interested party, without hearing the interested parties and without putting them to notice, the order dated 17.12.2020 was passed by the Collector, Gir Somnath. By way of the affidavit in reply, the respondent No.5 has tried to justify the act of preferring application for leave to appeal before the Special Secretary by stating that as their request for acquisition of the land was made right from the year 2010 and even prior thereto those requests were overlooked and he was never considered to be an interested person and behind his back vide order dated 17.12.2020 the land which is important for a large scale project involving public interest has been allotted to the petitioner, which would go to show that the respondent No.5 has locus to challenge the order before the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department.
Page 22 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 6.9 The respondent No.5 has taken a stand that he has locus to challenge the order passed by the Collector, Gir Somnath since the said order was passed behind its back and without issuing notice to the respondent No.5 or hearing him and hence the respondent No.5 was constrained to file revision application challenging the order dated 17.12.2020. The respondent No.5 has further taken a stand that while passing order dated 8.7.2021 after hearing the respondent No.5, though the Secretary allowed the application for leave to appeal, but since it did not reflect in the order dated 8.7.2021, a note for speaking to minutes was filed. The petitioner even filed his objection to the aforesaid note for speaking to minutes and thereafter considering the objections filed by the petitioner, a further order dated 30.9.2021 was passed whereby the application for leave to appeal of the respondent No.5 and was allowed and by keeping the order dated 8.7.2021 as it is, the stay of the proceedings till final outcome of the revision application was extended and the matter was adjourned to 8.10.2021.
Page 23 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 6.10 In the affidavit, the respondent No.5 has taken a stand that civil and criminal disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.5 are pending before the competent court of law being Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 2014, which is pending before the court of Senior Civil Judge, Una, which is in respect of sale deed executed between the respondent No.5 and legal heirs of Bogha Govind as well as Criminal Inquiry No.1 of 2011 before the Court of JMFC, Kodinar which would go to show that the land in question belongs to Bogha Govind, who executed sale deed in favour of respondent No.5 and the petitioner actually does not have any land nor was he allotted any land. However, by virtue of order dated 17.12.2020 the Mamlatdar was directed to act in accordance with the Government circulars and Resolutions, the occupancy price was accepted from the petitioner and he was put into possession of the land in question, and therefore, as the respondent No.5 is vitally affected he is an `aggrieved person', and therefore, he has locus to challenge the aforesaid order.
Page 24 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022
C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 7 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kavina appearing with Mr. Viral Gurjar, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.5 challenged the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the District Collector, Gir Somnath by preferring revision application before the respondent No.1 whereby the respondent No.1 issued notice on 28.6.2020 and matter was scheduled for hearing on 6.7.2021. However, though the petitioner did not receive notice prior to 6.7.2021 and in fact received the notice on 7.7.2021, upon inquiry it was found by the petitioner that respondent No.1 passed order dated 8.7.2021 whereby even without waiting for the service of notice, the respondent No.1 passed order without hearing the petitioner and stayed the implementation, execution and operation of the order dated 17.12.2020. Not only that thereafter respondent No.5 preferred an application for speaking to minutes stating that while hearing the matter on 6.7.2021 a specific request was made by the advocate for the respondent No.5 to grant leave to file the proceedings and upon such request, the respondent Page 25 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 No.1 has specifically declared / pronounced about allowing the application seeking leave to file the proceedings. However, in the speaking to minutes, it is stated that the aforesaid oral pronouncement did not reflect in the order dated 8.7.2021, and therefore, a prayer was made in the note for speaking to minutes to pass appropriate order so as to transcribe the order upon the application seeking leave to file appeal, which was orally granted at the time of hearing, but left out to be typed in the order dated 8.7.2021. Mr. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate drew attention of the Court to the language of Sections 203 and 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and submitted that as per the provisions of Sections 203 and 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, only a person, who is aggrieved by the order passed by the revenue authority can file an appeal. In the instant case, the respondent No.5 cannot be said to be an `aggrieved person', and therefore, he has no locus to challenge the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the District Collector, Gir Somnath. 7.1 Mr. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate also Page 26 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 drew attention of this Court to the provisions of Sections 205 and 206 of the Code and contended that as per the provision of Sections 205 and 206 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, if an order passed by the Collector is challenged, in that case, it is required to be challenged within a period of 90 days from the date of the order as per the limitation prescribed under Section 205 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. In the instance case, since the period of limitation of 90 days had already been expired, an application for leave to appeal, revision application and stay application were required to be accompanied by application for condonation of delay and unless the delay is condoned in preferring the application and unless the application for leave to appeal is granted, no stay could have been granted in favour of respondent No.5. Learned Senior Advocate also contended that after the order dated 8.7.2021 was passed when the respondent No.5 preferred an application for speaking to minutes, the respondent No.1 not only considered an application for speaking to minutes, but allowed the same by order dated 30.9.2021. Mr. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate Page 27 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 submitted that as per the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Rules framed thereunder and as per the rules of business, no such procedure under the name of speaking to minutes is available. Mr. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate further submitted that if a procedure is not prescribed under the Act, the authority cannot adopt the said procedure and pass an order on such application for speaking to minutes.
7.2 Mr. Percy Kavina, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the aforesaid speaking to minutes was preferred as an afterthought and though originally vide order dated 28.7.2021 the leave to appeal was not granted vide order dated 30.9.2021, the respondent No.1 allowed the note for speaking to minutes and granted leave to appeal as well. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that despite the reply to the note for speaking to minutes was preferred by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 without considering the submissions made by the petitioner opposing the note for speaking to minutes passed an order dated 30.9.2021 and allowed the note for speaking to Page 28 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 minutes and thereby though vide original order dated 8.7.2021 leave to appeal was not granted in favour of respondent No.5, the same was granted subsequently. 7.3 Mr. Kavina, learned Senior advocate appearing for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:
[1] Patel Vinodbhai Khodidas vs. Patel Pravinbhai Kachrabhai reported in 2021(2) GLH
650.
[2] Saurashtra Rachnatmak Samiti, Rajkot vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2007(2) GLR 1649. [3] Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad & Ors. reported in 2012(4) SCC 407. [4] Adi Pherozshah Gandhi vs. H.M.Seervai, Advocate General of Maharashtra, Bombay reported in 1970(2) SCC 484.
[5] Shree Vavdi Seva Sahkari Mandali limited Page 29 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. in Special Civil Application No.11321 of 2017 vide judgment dated 23.12.2019.
[6] Hari Narain vs. Badri Das reported in 1963 AIR(SC) 1558.
[7] Sri V.N.Krishna Murthy & Anr. vs. Sri Ravikumar & Ors. passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2701-2704 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.8.2020.
7.4 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina first canvassed the contention about who can be said to be an `aggrieved person'. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina by relying upon the decision in the case of Adi Pherozshah Gandhi (Supra), more particularly relying on paras 7 to 11, submitted that a `person aggrieved' must be a person who had suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which had wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something. Merely Page 30 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 because an order is wrongly made would not itself give a grievance to a person to be said to be an aggrieved person. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that only because of a person who feels disappointed about the result of a case cannot be termed to be an `aggrieved person'. He must demonstrate that he is disappointed of a benefit which he would have received if the order had gone the other way. 7.5 Thereafter, Mr. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate relying upon the decision in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra), more particularly para 44, submitted that a legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of the law. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained an injury to any legally protected interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party. A person who wants to become a party in a case has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or threatened to be violated. For the reasons that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person, a person cannot Page 31 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 be heard as a party unless he answers the description of an aggrieved party as decided in the case of Adi Pherozshah Gandhi (Supra) and other such cases. 7.6 Thereafter Mr. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate relying upon the decision dated 23.12.2019 rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 11321 of 2017 in the case of Shree Vavdi Seva Sahkari Mandali Limited vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. and pointed out that in the said judgment also the ratio laid down in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) was followed. It is further submitted that in that case also it was held by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court that the petitioner is not deprived or denied of any legal right and has not sustained any legal injury to any legally protected interest, and therefore, respondent No.5 cannot be termed as an `aggrieved person'.
7.7 Mr. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate thereafter relieved upon a judgment dated 21.8.2020 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sri V.N.Krishna Murthy & Anr. vs. Shri Ravikumar & Ors. Page 32 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 in Civil Appeal No.2701 of 2020 and submitted that respondent No.5 herein could not demonstrate by way of material placed on record that how order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the Collector, Gir Somnath would adversely or prejudicially affect him. Mr. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the aforesaid judgment in support of his submission that right to appeal can be created by statute only and it would be improper to grant leave to appeal to every person who may in some remote or indirect way be prejudicially affected by a decree or judgment. Learned Senior Advocate reiterated the test for grant of leave to appeal and submitted that ordinarily leave to appeal should be granted to persons who, though not party to the proceedings, would be bound by the decree or judgment in that proceeding and who would be precluded from attacking its correctness in other proceedings. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that in the instant case, the respondent No.5 had only applied for the land in question and merely by applying for the land in question, it cannot be said any legal right is created in favour of respondent No.5 and therefore the respondent No.5 Page 33 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 cannot be said to be an `aggrieved person' who can initiate proceedings before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department by filing an application for leave to appeal.
7.8 By citing the aforesaid judgments, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina submitted that in the instant case, the case of the respondent No.5 is that they are a big company, who has entered into a MoU with the State of Gujarat for development of Simar Port as Multi-user, Multi-Cargo port along with necessary infrastructure. He further submitted that on the strength of the MoU no statutory right is created in favour of respondent No.5, and therefore, when respondent No.5 had only applied for acquisition of land in question to the State Government and considering the fact that the aforesaid application was twice rejected by the State Government, no right was ever created in favour of respondent No.5 to get the land in question by way of acquisition of the aforesaid land or otherwise. Respondent No.5 in the past also was in no way connected with the land in question, and therefore, merely because respondent Page 34 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 No.5 had made an application for acquisition of the aforesaid land to the State of Gujarat, and if the land is allotted to the petitioner, the aforesaid allotment would not bring respondent No.5 within the meaning of `aggrieved person'. He further submitted that the application of respondent No.5 for acquisition of land was independently considered and rejected. When the Collector in an independent proceedings, which were originally initiated in 2017 and ultimately passed order on 17.12.2020, in those proceedings from beginning the respondent No.5 was not party to any of the proceedings, merely because the land is allotted to the petitioner over which respondent No.5 also had made claims in the past be that by way of acquisition merely by making claim over the land may not bring the respondent No.5 within the meaning of `aggrieved person'. The order dated 17.12.2020 is passed in independent proceedings as the land was originally acquired by the State Government under the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act proceedings and thereafter it was given to the father of the petitioner on `santhani' basis and as the petitioner was enjoying the possession of Page 35 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 the land and cultivating the land ever since it was granted to the father of the petitioner by way of `santhani', name of the petitioner was not there in the revenue record as assignee. He preferred an application for entering his name as assignee and as he could not trace out the receipt of the amount paid by him towards occupancy price, the proceedings before the Collector took place. Right from 1969 till 2020 the possession of the land in question was enjoyed by the petitioner and he is still enjoying the land in question and at no point of time the respondent No.5 was in picture. Merely because a MoU is executed between the State Government, Maritime Board and respondent No.5, it would not confer any right in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of the land in question, and therefore. respondent No.5 cannot be said to be an `aggrieved person', and therefore he has no locus to challenge the order dated 17.12.2020, and the respondent No.1 has committed an error by granting application for leave to appeal in favour of respondent No.5. 7.9 By making the aforesaid submissions, Page 36 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina submitted that the impugned orders dated 8.7.2021 and 30.9.2021 are required to be quashed and set aside on the following grounds:
[a] Vide order dated 30.9.2021 respondent No.1 has entertained an application upon a note for speaking to minutes, which procedure is not prescribed under the statute or Rules of Business and hence the order dated 30.9.2022 ought not to have been passed by the respondent No.1.
[b] The respondent No.5 cannot be said to be an `aggrieved person' in respect of the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the Collector, Gir Somnath and hence the respondent No.5 has no locus to challenge the aforesaid order.
[c] While preferring revision application along with application for leave to appeal, the respondent No.1 granted stay in favour of the petitioner and allowed the application for leave Page 37 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 to appeal. However, the order dated 17.12.2020 was challenged only in June, 2021 and hence application for leave to appeal, revision application and stay application were required to be accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, but respondent No.5 never preferred the same. Hence, the respondent No.1 has committed an error while passing the orders dated 8.7.2021 and 30.9.2021 even without considering the aspect of delay.
[d] While order dated 8.7.2021 was passed, the same was passed without hearing the petitioner and hence virtually that was an ex parte order. [e] Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that if the land in question is a very important and precious land for the purpose of fulfillment of the project of respondent No.5 in that case respondent Nos.5 and 6 must enter into negotiation with the present petitioner and they can purchase the land from the petitioner subject to fulfillment of the conditions imposed Page 38 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 by the State, but respondent No.5 cannot challenge the order passed by the Collector, Gir Somnath as respondent No.5 cannot be said to be an `aggrieved person' and hence respondent No.5 has no locus.
[f] By making the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 8.7.2021 and 30.9.2021.
8 As against the above, Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the say of the petitioner is factually incorrect. In fact, the petitioner is an encroacher. Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate submitted that it is true that father of the petitioner i.e. Virbhanbhai Vala was allotted land admeasuring 11-19 Acres-Gunthas of survey No.637 and 5-10 Acres-Gunthas of survey No.633 of Village Sarkhadi, Taluka Kodinar, District Gir Somnath upon payment of Rs.2,000/- as occupancy price on new and impartial tenure vide order dated 25.3.1969. Page 39 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 8.1 Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate drew attention of this Court to the Entry No.1303 produced at page 48 and typed copy of which is at page 48A of the paper book and submitted that vide entry No.1303 what was recorded was about order dated 25.3.1969 by which the land was allotted to the father of the petitioner. Learned Senior Advocate referring to form 7/12 abstract in respect of the land bearing survey No.633 pointed out that from 1966-67 till 1998-99 it was either Bogha Govind or his family members were cultivating the land and not the petitioner. As regards survey No.637 it was submitted by learned Senior Advocate that only for 2 years i.e. 1969-70 and 1970-71 name of father of the petitioner was shown as farmer in respect of total land i.e. 28-19 Acres-Gunthas. However, after 1971 name of only Bogha Govind is stated in the revenue record. Learned Senior Advocate also drew attention of this Court to the fact that 7/12 abstract of survey No.633 is in respect of 5-10 Acres-Gunthas, which is the total area of land, which was allegedly allotted to the petitioner. Whereas, revenue record of Survey No.637 mentions about total area of 28-19 Page 40 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 Acres-Gunthas out of which only 11-19 Acres-Gunthas was alleged to have been allotted to the petitioner. The aforesaid land was thereafter converted into a new tenure land after the name of Bogha Govind was entered into the revenue record vide entry No.1303. Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that after 1971-72 at no point of time name of father of petitioner or the petitioner figured in the revenue records in respect of land bearing survey No.637. In fact, vide entry No.1612 names of legal heirs of Bogha Govind were entered into the revenue records, but even at that point of time also name of father of the petitioner or petitioner was not entered into the revenue record. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the claim of the petitioner over the land in question as assignee by way of `santhani' is absolutely ill-founded. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the petitioner never paid the occupancy price pursuant to the order dated 25.3.1969 nor was he in possession of the land in question after 1971-72 and the aforesaid facts are indicated in the revenue record, which are produced by the petitioner himself in the petition, Page 41 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 and therefore, the petitioner cannot dispute the aforesaid facts. Learned Senior Advocate referring to the aforesaid record, order dated 25.3.1969 and conditions of allotment, submitted that as per condition No.4, land was required to be cultivated by the allottee himself and in case for two consecutive years if the land remains uncultivated, in that case that land would be vested into the Government. In the instant case, as the petitioner has never cultivated the land after 1971-72, in all the subsequent entries, the land in question is shown as Government land and name of the petitioner is nowhere mentioned in the revenue record. Learned Senior Advocate further pointed out from the revenue record that name of Bogha Govind is mentioned, who happens to be brother of father of the petitioner and he was also allotted a portion of land from survey No.637, and therefore, he being altogether different person, petitioner cannot claim any right over the land in question. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that as far as the land bearing survey No.633 is concerned, the aforesaid land was never allotted to Bogha Govind and when Bogha Govind was in possession Page 42 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 of the land in question, all throughout, the land is shown as Government land.
8.2 Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate submitted that as per the record Virbhan Govind, father of the petitioner expired on 15.1.1992 (photocopy of death certificate of Virbhan Govind is produced at page 113) and after death of father of the petitioner, till 2017 nothing was done by the petitioner to get his name entered in the revenue record by making necessary application. Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that for the first time in the year 2017 an application was made by the petitioner for payment of occupancy price and submitted that an amount of Rs.2,000/- may be accepted from the petitioner towards occupancy price. However, the aforesaid request made by the petitioner was rejected on 2.5.2017 vide communication dated 6.5.2017 by Mamlatdar, Kodinar. Learned Senior Advocate thereafter pointed out from the record that on 22.8.2017 petitioner made an application addressing to the Deputy Collector, Una wherein he has specifically stated that the occupancy price of Page 43 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 Rs.2,000/- could not be paid by father of the petitioner and admitted the fact that the land is vested into the Government and prayed for regnant of land by accepting the amount from the petitioner as per the then existing policy of the Government. After pointing out the aforesaid communication dated 22.8.2017 produced at page 289 of the paper book, learned Senior advocate pointed out to the communications dated 2.2.2018 and 7.8.2018 addressed to the Mamlatdar, Kodinar and the Collector, Gir Somnath, respectively and submitted that immediately in the next year the stand of the petitioner had changed by canvassing that he had already paid the occupancy price in the year 1969, and as he could not trace out the proof of payment, he is ready and willing to pay the occupancy price as per the prevailing policy of the Government and hence the same may be accepted.
8.3 Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that against the order of Mamlatdar, Kodinar dated 6.5.2017, the petitioner also preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Una, which was Page 44 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 registered as No.RRT/Delay Case No.17/19, which was rejected on the ground of delay vide order dated 8.3.2019. Against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Gir Somnath being Appeal No.Land/3/Appeal No.4/19 and the Collector, Gir Somnath quashed and set aside the order dated 8.3.2019 and partly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and directed the Prant Officer, Rajula to ascertain as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of new policy of the Government in respect of the relevant Government policy. The aforesaid order was passed in Appeal No.4/19 on 24.10.2019. Pursuant to which the Deputy Collector forwarded the aforesaid issue for examination of the Mamlatdar, Kodinar and accordingly the Mamlatdar, Kodinar submitted his opinion dated 24.12.2019. 8.4 Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate further submitted that after taking into consideration the opinion of the Mamlatdar, Kodinar dated 24.12.2019 in Remand Case No.55/19, ultimately the Collector, Una rejected the application preferred by the petitioner. It was specifically stated by the Deputy Collector, Page 45 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 Una that the Government Resolution dated 19.2.2018 is not applicable to the facts of the present case and ultimately the aforesaid order of the Deputy Collector, Una dated 20.1.2019 was carried in appeal (the date should be 20.1.2020) by way of Land/3/Appeal No.2/13 before the Collector, Gir Somnath, wherein vide order dated 17.12.2020 the Collector, Gir Somnath passed the impugned order in favour of the petitioner, which is the subject matter of challenge before the respondent No.1. By stating the aforesaid facts, learned Senior Advocate submitted that by way of the order dated 17.12.2020 the Collector, Gir Somnath issued direction and pursuant to the aforesaid direction ultimately the occupancy price along with penalty was accepted from the petitioner and possession of the land in question was handed over to the petitioner.
8.5 Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the record indicates that though the land was allotted to father of the petitioner in the year 1969, but he never paid the occupancy price, and the petitioner was not sure about the payment of Page 46 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 occupancy price. Though the petitioner has no right and title over the land in question as the land was neither cultivated by him nor his name was there in the revenue records and the petitioner is an encroacher in respect of the land in question. However, the Collector, Gir Somnath without considering any material on record passed the order dated 17.12.2020 in favour of the petitioner. 8.6 After canvassing that in fact it was the petitioner who had no interest left in the land in question after 1971-72. Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate submitted that respondent No.5 can be said to be an interested person or aggrieved person in respect of the land in question. For that the learned Senior Advocate from the record pointed out that a letter of intent for development of Simar Port was issued by the Gujarat Maritime Board in favour of respondent No.5 as back as on 25.5.2005 and thereafter vide communication dated 7.4.2010, the Gujarat Maritime Board intimated the respondent No.5 that the Gujarat Maritime Board has decided to grant NOC for acquisition of private land to M/s. Shapoorji Page 47 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 Pallonji Group on its own expenses, but subject to certain conditions. Vide communication dated 10.6.2014 once again another NOC was granted in respect of the land bearing survey No.637 paiki 1 of Village Sarkhadi by Gujarat Maritime Board. 8.7 In fact, the respondent No.5 had applied for grant of the aforesaid land to the Gujarat Maritime Board and the Gujarat Maritime Board has in turn requested the Collector, Veraval for the aforesaid land as back as on 7.4.2010 and at that time since Gir Somnath district was not created the application was addressed to the Collector, Junagadh and ultimately, the Mamlatdar, Kodinar vide communication dated 3.9.2010 addressed to the Deputy Collector, Veraval submitted that the land in question is encroached by Rambhai Boghabhai and treating the fact that he is not cultivating, the land may not be allotted to respondent No.5. Mr. Joshi, leaned Senior Advocate for that purpose drew attention of this Court to the communication dated 30.9.2010 by Mamlatdar, Kodinar to the Deputy Collector, Veraval which is at page 270 of the paper Page 48 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 book.
8.8 Similarly, the learned Senior Advocate submitted that accordingly vide communication dated 28.12.2010 the Gujarat Maritime Board was intimated by the Collector, Junagadh about the fact that the request for allotment of the land in question was rejected on account of encroachment upon the said land by a local person. The aforesaid letter dated 28.12.2010 is produced at page 204 of the paper book. Learned Senior Advocate thereafter pointed out to the communication dated 18.12.2019 by the Mamlatdar-2, Gir Somnath District to the Port Officer, Gujarat Maritime Board, Veraval, which is produced at page 205 of the paper book and submitted that in the aforesaid letter also there is a reference about communication dated 28.12.2012 rejecting the application of the respondent No.5 for allotment of land in question. By way of all these communications, it can be seen that application of the respondent No.5 was rejected only on the ground that the land was encroached by a local person. However, at no point of time, the application of respondent No.5 was Page 49 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 rejected on merit.
8.9 Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the record would indicate that the petitioner applied for the land in question as back as in the year 2010. It is only after the fact that twice the application preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Government authorities on the ground that the land encroached by a local person, only in 2017 after sensing that the land in question is situated at a strategically very important location for respondent No.5, the petitioner started making claim over the subject land and offered to pay the occupancy price only in the year 2017. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that if the claim of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent No.5 is seen in that case respondent No.5 has made application for allotment of the aforesaid land in the year 2010, whereas name of the petitioner is not even shown as encroacher in the revenue record as in the report submitted by the Mamlatdar, Kodinar dated 30.9.2010 the name of Rambhai Boghabhai was stated as encroacher over the land in question and not of the petitioner. It is Page 50 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 further submitted that the petitioner was never in possession of the land in question and yet for the first time he made a claim over the said land in the year 2017, that too by taking contrary stands viz. after the land was allotted vide order dated 25.3.1969, the petitioner could not pay the occupancy price and later on changed his stand and stated that though the occupancy price was paid at the relevant point of time he could not trace out the receipt of the payment. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner would show that the petitioner was never an occupier of the land in question, and therefore, if the stand of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent No.5 is seen, the respondent No.5 has made application for allotment of the land in question prior in point of time coupled with the fact that the application of the respondent No.5 is in respect of a project having larger public interest and which is backed by the State Government as State Government has also entered into the MoU with respondent No.5 for development of Simar Port.
8.10 Learned Senior Advocate further submitted Page 51 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 that the Collector, Gir Somnath has passed order dated 17.12.2020 by overlooking the facts of the case and claim of the petitioner, and therefore, respondent No.5 can be said to be an `aggrieved person', and though respondent No.5 was never a party to the proceedings has rightly made an application for leave to appeal along with revision application and application for stay, which has been considered in its true spirit by respondent No.1 by passing the orders dated 8.7.2021 and 30.9.2021. Leaned Senior Advocate further drew attention of this Court to page 309 of the paper book and submitted that there is an inter se dispute between the legal heirs of Virbhan Govind and Bogha Govind for which Special Civil Suit No.2 of 2014 is pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge at Una whereby the legal heirs of the petitioner has prayed for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land situated at survey No.637 wherein he has challenged the sale deed executed between the legal heirs of Bogha Govind and respondent No.5 on 17.1.2014 in respect of land admeasuring 17-00 Acres-Gunthas and the suit is preferred for cancelling the aforesaid sale deed and Page 52 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 that the prayer is limited to 17-00 Acres-Gunthas allotted to Bogha Govind, which is sold to the respondent No.5 company by registered sale deed. The aforesaid land is just adjacent to the land in question. In the memo of the plaint there is no mention about the details of allotment order in favour of the father of the petitioner, area of the land, survey number, etc. Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate further pointed out that with regard to entry No.1303 the proceedings are pending before the JMFC, Kodinar, but that fact has been suppressed conveniently by the petitioner. By making the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the following judgments to substantiate the case of respondent No.5:
[1] Hardevindar Singh vs. Paramjit Singh reported in 2013(9) SCC 261.
[2] Jasbhi Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. reported in (1976)1 SCC
671. Page 53 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022
C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 [3] Black's Law Dictionary, "aggrieved party". [4] Hemant Pragjibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat passed in Special Civil Application No.15745 of 2017 with Civil Application No.1/2010 - CAV Order in IA dated 30.4.2018. [5] Hiraben Bachu Puja Ayar & Ors. vs. Deputy Collector & Ors. passed in Special Civil Application Nos.15039 of 2013 & 15357 of 2013 vide Common Oral judgment dated 7.12.2016. [6] Kanjibhai Valjibhai & Ors. vs. Noormohammad Ibrahim Paleja & Ors. passed in Special Civil Application No. 4385 of 2007 vide order dated 19.2.2007.
[7] State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. reported in (1982) SCC 463. [8] Sarat Chandra Maiti & Ors. vs. Bibhabati Debi & Ors. reported in AIR 1921 Cal. 584. Page 54 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 8.11 Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate relying upon the judgment in the case of Jasbhi Motibhai Desai (supra), more particularly paras 13, 35 and 39, submitted that the expression `aggrieved person' denotes an elastic and to an extent an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. At best, its features can be described in a broad tentative manner. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him. Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that what is required to be examined by the Court is to determine as to whether a person is `person aggrieved' or merely a stranger would be to determine the factors such as; Whether the person is a person whose legal right has been infringed? Has he suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the sense that his interest, recognised by law has been prejudicially and directly affected by the act or omission of the authority? Whether that person has suffered a legal Page 55 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 grievance, or whether a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something? He further submitted that what is required to be determined is whether he was entitled to object and be heard by the authority before it took the impugned action. He further submitted that to determine whether a person is an aggrieved or not, the totality of the facts are required to be seen. 8.12 Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Hemant Pragjibhai Patel (supra), more particularly, paras 5.5 and 5.6, submitted that the word `person aggrieved' would include a person whose interest is prejudicially affected by a decision. A person who has a genuine grievance that a decision has adversely hit him and denied him something which was otherwise legally possible to be due to him. In that case he can be termed as an `aggrieved person'. The word `aggrieved person' is a word of wide import and cannot be subjected to a restricted interpretation. Page 56 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 He further submitted that legal injury can be said to have been suffered even in absence of apparent damage suffered by such injury and in that case the sufferer of the injury would have been accorded a remedy and he would be invested with right to challenge conduct, action or order which may have resulted into causing a legal injury to him. This right in the nature of legal injury may be right to assert a particular thing or it may be a right to raise defence on a particular count and if the rights of this nature are violated, in that case even the sufferer can also be said to be an `aggrieved person' who can claim locus standi in law. By relying upon the aforesaid judgment, Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the respondent No.5 applied for acquisition of the land in question ever since 2010. However, at no point of time, his claim was rejected considering the merits of the matter. The petitioner applied for the said land though the land continued to be shown as Government land and even the possession over the land in question was not with the petitioner though he has applied for right over the land in question in the capacity of assignee by Page 57 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 offering the occupancy price along with interest. When the claim of the petitioner and respondent No.5 were in respect of the same Government land the Collector, Gir Somnath vide order dated 17.12.2020 passed an order in favour of the petitioner, including the claim of the respondent No.5. That amounts to legal injury to respondent No.5 and hence respondent No.5 can be said to be an aggrieved person.
8.13 Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate also relied on the definition of `aggrieved party' from the Black's Law Dictionary, which reads as under:
"AGGRIEVED PARTY. One whose legal right is invaded by an act complained of or whose pecuniary interest is directly affected by a decree or judgment. Glos v. People, 259 I11. 322, 103 N.E. 763, 766, Ann. Cas.1914C. 199. See next topic. One whose right of property may be established or divested. McFarland v. Pierce, 151 Ind. 546. 45 N.E. 706. The word "aggrieved refers to a substantial grievance, a denial of some personal or property right, or the imposition upon a party of a burden or obligation. Roullard v. McSoley, 54 R.I. 232, Page 58 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 172 A.326, 327. Injured in a legal sense. In re Donnelly's Estate, 55 S.D. 426 N.W. 563, 565)"
8.14 Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Samir Agrawal vs. Competition Commission of India & Ors. reported in (2021)3 SCC 136, submitted that the word "aggrieved person' must be interpreted in the context of controversy in question. It cannot have any rigid meaning, but it must be understood widely and not to constructed narrowly. Learned Senior Advocate relied upon the observations made in para 21 of the judgment, wherein the case of Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. Advocate General of Maharashtra, (1970)2 SCC 484 was considered by three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and after considering the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the word `aggrieved person' must be construed in the context of the act, and to be understood widely and not to be constructed narrowly.
8.15 By relying upon the judgment and order in the case of Kanjibhai Valjibhai (supra), Mr. Joshi, Page 59 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 learned Senior Advocate submitted that the respondent No.5 being affected party they were required to be heard by the Collector before passing any order in favour of the petitioner.
8.16 Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Hiraben Bachu Puja Ayar (supra) submitted that in a similar situation when the petitioner of the aforesaid petition was granted land in the year 1969, he could not pay the occupancy price nor he had any document to show that the predecessors of the petitioner has paid the occupancy price and measurement charges and when he raised the dispute for the first time after death of predecessor in the year 2012, his claim was rejected by the Deputy Collector and that order of the Deputy Collector was challenged before this Court and ultimately the order of the Deputy Collector was upheld by this Court while observing that in absence of any document on record to show that the petitioners or their predecessors had taken any action to comply with the conditions contained in the order dated 25.3.1969 Page 60 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 the Assistant Collector had rightly rejected their applications. Learned Senior Advocate by relying upon the above judgment submitted that in the instant case also the land was granted to the petitioner of that petition as back as in the year 1969 only just like the case on hand and as at the relevant point of time the occupancy amount could not be paid by the petitioner of that case, the claim of the petitioner to accept the occupancy and measurement charges of the land was rejected by the Deputy Collector and the said order was confirmed by this Court as the conditions of the order was not complied with by the original assignee.
8.17 Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate relying upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak (supra), more particularly para 4, submitted that if the judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well settled that the statement of fact as to what transpired at the time of hearing recorded in the judgment of the Court are Page 61 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in the Court are wrongly recorded in a judgment it is incumbent upon the party while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges to call attention of the very judges who have made the record to the fact and pointed out the aforesaid error and to get necessary clarification as that is the only way to have the record corrected. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi further submitted that as far as order dated 30.9.2021 passed on an application for speaking to minutes is concerned, when the authority itself has stated in the order that leave to appeal was granted, however, the said order was left out to be typed in the order dated 8.7.2021 and such statement of the authority cannot be allowed to contradict by statement at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If a Judge or a quasi judicial authority says something in the order, the same must be believed by considering his word to be the last word. 8.18 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi by Page 62 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 relying upon the aforesaid judgment submitted that when the respondent No.5 realized that while passing order dated 8.7.2021 the leave to appeal was granted and the same was left out to be typed in the order. To rectify the aforesaid mistake, an application for speaking to minutes was filed by respondent No.5. The said application was filed as there was no other mode available to respondent No.5 to get the aforesaid mistake rectified. What is paramount is to ensure that something that was part and parcel of the order, but was left out in the copy of the order is to be brought to the knowledge of the concerned authority with a view to enable the authority to rectify the mistake, which has resulted into omission of some part of the order while transcribing the order. That was done to ensure that the ends of justice would be met and such application was preferred immediately as soon as the aforesaid mistake was noticed by the respondent No.5 to ensure that it is preferred at the earliest when the matter is still fresh in the mind of the authority. He further submitted that more or less because there is no provision of application like leave to appeal, in Page 63 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 the rules of business it does not mean that if any mistake is done by the authority while transcribing the order on paper, which amounts to omission of some part of the order at the time of transcribing the order on paper, in that case making an application before the concerned Judge would be only remedy or course of action available to the concerned person, who notices such mistake.
8.19 Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate submitted that nomenclature may be different in respect of different proceedings, but what is required to be seen is the purpose for which the application was made. He further submitted that even if any procedure like note for speaking to minutes is not prescribed or is not a part of rules of business, yet an application for correcting the order can always be made by a person, who notices the error in the order and if such application is preferred irrespective of its nomenclature, the same is required to be considered by the authority. In the instant case, the authority has not committed any error by considering the application made by Page 64 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 respondent No.5 for speaking to minutes and by passing order dated 30.9.2021 on it.
8.20 Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate thereafter relying upon the judgment in the case of Sarat Chandra Maiti (supra), more particularly, the observations made in para 12 of the said judgment, that, "Again in Nellavadivn v. Subvanianiya, Mr. Justice Sadasiva Iyer observed that a statement in a judgment as to an admission made before the Court of first instance should not be doubted lightly by the appellate Court, specially in the absence of an affidavit by the Vakil who appeared in the Court of first instance. It is plain that in cases of this character where a litigant feels aggrieved by the statement in a judgment that an admission has been made, the most convenient and satisfactory course to follow, wherever practicable, is to apply to the Judge without delay and ask for rectification or review of the judgment.", and submitted that since the respondent No.5 found that a part of the order passed by the respondent No.1 was missing as left out to be typed in the order, an application for speaking Page 65 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 to minutes was filed and when such application was filed along with an affidavit of the lawyer himself, who appeared before the authority, the same cannot be doubted and the same cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the provisions of the law.
8.21 As far as the submission of Mr. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate in respect of invocation of powers under Section 211 by preferring a revision application by respondent No.5 is concerned, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi relying upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Kamlaben Babarbhai Solanki through Power of Attorney vs. State of Gujarat - through Special Secretary & Ors. reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 6528, more particularly, paras 5 and 6, submitted that so far as the contention with regard to non-maintainability of the Revision Application under section 211 at the instance of Private party is concerned, it has been specifically held in the said decision that it is open to the State Government under Section 211 to exercise revisional powers either suo moto or otherwise and to examine the order or decision of the Collector to find out whether it Page 66 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 is legal and proper. On plain reading of Section 211, it clearly transpires that it is a residuary section in the sense that an officer empowered by that section on his own motion or otherwise can correct or set-aside an erroneous decision of the subordinate officer. This power could be exercised by the State government or revenue officer at the instance of any person, even if he is not the aggrieved party. There is nothing in the said Section to suggest that it could be invoked suo moto only and not at the instance of the aggrieved or private party. 8.22 By citing the aforesaid judgment, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that revision application can be preferred by a person, who is not a party to the original proceedings. He further submitted that any person, who is aggrieved by the order passed by the authority can prefer revision application under Section 203 as well as 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. He further submitted that as per the settled proposition of law even a private party who is not a party to the original proceedings if is of the view that the order passed by the Page 67 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 Collector is an illegal order, he can prefer a revision application and by invoking the remedy provided under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and thereafter it is the matter of discretion of the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department as to whether to exercise the revisional powers available to him under Section 211 of the Code. But such application can be said to be maintainable. Therefore, the submission of learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina that the application for leave to appeal is not maintainable, is misconceived. 9 Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing with learned advocate Mr. Virk for the respondent No.6 submitted that the revisional powers of the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department under Section 211 of the Act are very wide. He submitted that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 cannot be said to be strangers to the proceedings in question before the Collector.
9.1 Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General submitted that when the land is given on the basis of Page 68 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 `santhani' to someone the title of the land remains with the State only and the allotment would be made to that person can always hold the land and not as an absolute owner and only for the purpose of cultivating and earning livelihood out of the same. Learned Advocate General, relying upon para 2 of the order dated 18.9.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No.16601 of 2017 in the case of Chhaganbhai Arjanbhai Vegada vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., submitted that the allotment of land on 'santhani' basis is always pursuant to the policy of the State Government. If a particular person is found to be a landless labourer, then to provide him with some means of livelihood, the State Government would allot the land of restricted tenure, subject to certain terms and conditions. The person in whose favour such allotment is made would always hold the land not as an absolute owner, but for the purpose of cultivating and earning livelihood out of the same. The ownership of the land would vest and remain with the State Government. Learned Advocate General further submitted that when the land is given on `santhani' basis to someone, that person would have Page 69 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 very limited right and that person would not get absolute ownership rights.
9.2 Since the submission made by Mr. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate that if the respondent No.5 wants the land in question for completion of their project, in that case respondent No.5 should negotiate with the petitioner, Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General submitted that as per the petitioner at no point of time even if he is believed to be the holder of the land on the basis of `santhani' throughout cannot be said to be absolute owner of the land in question, and therefore, he cannot negotiate the land, as the said land is vest with the Government, and therefore, there is no question of negotiating with the petitioner. 9.3 Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General took this Court to the order dated 25.3.1969 whereby the land was allotted to the father of the petitioner on `santhani' basis. Learned Advocate General submitted that allotment of land on `santhani' basis was subject to certain conditions. The petitioner was Page 70 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 required to pay the occupancy price within a specified period mentioned in the order itself. In the instant case, since the father of the petitioner failed to comply with the aforesaid conditions the land was shown in the name of the Government in the revenue record. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the land in question was not allotted to respondent No.5 as it could not be acquired on account of encroachment on the land by private persons and not by considering the merit of the matter. Learned Advocate General further relying upon the Letter of Intent dated 25.4.2008 and submitted that the Letter of Intent was issued in favour of respondent No.5 as back as in the year 2008 and in 2008 as per the revenue record, the land was running in the name of Government. It is on 13.1.2011 during the Vibrant Gujarat, a Memorandum of Understanding was arrived at between respondent Nos.5 and 6 and pursuant to the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding, respondent No.6 requested the authority to acquire the land for the purpose of respondent No.5. Learned Advocate General drew attention of the Court to the application for Page 71 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 acquisition of land in Chhara and Sarkhadi villages made by the Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Gujarat Maritime Board to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat vide application dated 15/17.10.2013.
9.4 Learned Advocate General also drew attention of the Court to the environment clearance given by the Ministry of Environment & Forest to respondent No.5. Mr. Trivedi, learned Advocate General pointed out from the record that since 2014 the respondent No.6 has communicated with the Principal Secretary of Revenue Department for advance possession of the land in question, whereas the petitioner applied before the concerned authority on 3.5.2017. Learned Advocate General submitted that there are contradictions in the application made by the petitioner. On the one hand, the petitioner stated that though the occupancy price was paid at the relevant point of time by his father, he could not trace out the receipt of the same and on the other hand vide application dated 22.8.2017 he stated that since his father could not deposit the amount of Page 72 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 occupancy price, the land was vested in the Government, which would indicate that the petitioner's interest in the land ended on the date on which father of the petitioner failed to pay the occupancy price. Learned Advocate General pointed out from two communications dated 7.8.2018 and 22.8.2017 whereby the petitioner has taken two different, stands as stated herein above.
9.5 Learned Advocate General pointed out from the letter dated 17.6.2019 written by Gujarat Maritime Board to Collector, Gir Somnath wherein it is categorically stated that since 9 years Gujarat Maritime Board applied for allotment of the land for timely implementation of the project and requested to allot the land without there being any further delay to Collector, Gir Somnath. The communication dated 17.6.2019 is produced at page 189 of the compilation. 9.6 Learned Advocate General further submitted that the Government Resolution dated 19.2.2018 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned Advocate General thereafter relying upon Division Page 73 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 Bench decision of this Court in the case of Muman Habib Nasir Khanji vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 1970 GLR 307, more particularly, para 26, submitted that under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code the State Government may exercise its revisional powers suo moto or may not exercise at all. Once the order of the Collector is brought to the notice of the State Government it is within the discretion of the State Government to take further steps in the matter or not. The learned Advocate General further submitted that once an order of the Collector is brought to the notice of the State Government, it is for the State to exercise discretion whether to exercise revisional powers or not, but merely because a contention is raised that a person who is not person aggrieved has preferred an appeal or has no right to file an appeal and hence the proceedings before the State would become incompetent, cannot be accepted as once the matter is brought before the State Government, it is for the State Government to exercise its discretion. 9.7 Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General Page 74 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 further submitted that the proceedings under Section 211 of the Act can be initiated either suo motu by the State or otherwise, and therefore, it cannot be said that the revision application preferred by the respondent No.5 is not maintainable. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned Advocate General prayed for dismissal of the petition.
10 Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the entire record of the petition and considered the judgments cited by all the learned counsels for the parties.
10.1 The record of the case reveals that the land was originally allotted to the father of the petitioner viz. Virbhan Govind on `santhani' basis vide order dated 25.3.1969. Virbhan Godind got two parcels of land bearing survey No.637 paiki admeasuring 11-19 Acre-Gunthas and land bearing survey No.633 admeasuring 5-10 Acre-Gunthas upon payment of occupancy price of Rs.2,000/-. The aforesaid occupancy price was to be paid within the time frame stated in the order.
Page 75 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 10.2 Now, as far as the petitioner's claim over the land in question is concerned, the petitioner himself has vide his application made to the Deputy Collector, Una dated 22.8.2017 categorically stated that the father of the petitioner could not deposit the payment towards assignment of land and the land was vested into Government. The aforesaid application made by the petitioner is produced at Annexure-XII at page 289 along with the reply filed by the respondent No.5. Further, on page 290 of the reply, the responded No.5 has produced the reply given by the petitioner before the Revenue Talati, Sarkhadi on 18.10.2017 whereby he has categorically stated that at the time when the land was allotted to father of the petitioner, the petitioner's father could not pay the occupancy price towards the land in question. So there is a clear cut admission on the part of the petitioner not once but twice in respect of the fact that the father of the petitioner could not pay the occupancy price at the relevant point of time and the land had vested into the Government.
Page 76 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 10.3 The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder disputing the aforesaid reply filed by respondent No.5 nor has the petitioner questioned the genuineness about the aforesaid two documents. This fact is required to be seen along with the revenue record produced by the petitioner himself along with the petition by way of annexures. In 7/12 abstract in respect of survey No.633, since at the relevant point of time, brother of the father of the petitioner had paid the occupancy price in the revenue record, name of Bogha Govind is shown. Whereas, name of the father of the petitioner is not shown either as owner or occupier though there is a reference about the order dated 25.3.1970. Further, the area of the survey No.633 is 5-10 Acres-Gunthas, whereas the area of survey No.637 is 28-11 Acres-Gunthas, out of which as per the order dated 25.3.1970 Bhogta Govind is given only 17-00 Acres-Gunthas, whereas father of the petitioner was allotted 11-19 Acres-Gunthas. Revenue record in respect of survey No.633 indicates that it was Bogha Govind, who was in possession of the entire 28-11 Acres-Gunthas and not the petitioner (page No.58) right from 1966-67 till 1970-71. The revenue Page 77 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 record in respect of 1971-72 onwards at page 59 indicates that from 1971-72 onwards, only Bogha Govind was having possession of 17-00 Acres-Gunthas and 11-19 Acre-Gunthas was owned by the Government, which would indicate that in respect of survey No.637 the petitioner was never having possession either in form of legal possession or in the form of encroachment.
10.4 As far as survey No.633 is concerned, the name of the petitioner is not there right from 1971- 72 and 5-10 Acres-Gunthas land was occupied by Bogha Govind. This would indicate that the petitioner at the relevant point of time could not pay the occupancy price and even the statement made in the petition in para 8 of the potion at pages 6 and 7 that the name of the petitioner was reflected in the column of cultivator, is factually incorrect. In the column of cultivator also only name of Bogha Govind and his legal heirs are stated but not the name of the petitioner.
10.5 Therefore, when the petitioner made an Page 78 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 application dated 2.5.2017 praying for accepting an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards occupancy price, the same was rejected on the ground that the amount was required to be paid in the year 1969 and therefore at this juncture it cannot be accepted. Vide application dated 2.2.2018 at page 68 of the petition, the petitioner has taken a contradictory stand while making an application to Mamlatdar by stating that at the relevant point of time, the father of petitioner had paid the occupancy price.
10.6 The aforesaid facts would indicate that when the petitioner made an application for the first time to Mamlatdar, Kodinar, at that point of time, name of the petitioner was not there in the revenue record and land had already vested into the Government long back on account of non-payment of occupancy price. For the first time on 2.5.2017 the petitioner made an attempt to get his name entered into the revenue records and to become the owner of the land in question on the basis of the order dated 25.3.1969 passed in favour of father of the petitioner. From the record it appears that during Page 79 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 the life time of father of the petitioner, who died on 15.1.1992, the petitioner did nothing to claim his right over the land in question and for the first time for enforcement of order dated 25.3.1969, the petitioner made an application in the year 2017 i.e. almost after 50 years after the land was allotted to father of the petitioner and almost 25 years after the death of father of the petitioner.
10.7 As against the above, the record reveals that the respondent No.5 company was given Letter of Intent on 25.4.2008 by respondent No.6 pursuant to that for the first time an application for acquisition of the land bearing survey Nos.633 and 637 was given by respondent No.5 to the Collector, Junagadh through respondent No.6 vide letter dated 7.4.2010. A reference to the aforesaid application dated 7.4.2010 can be seen from the letter dated 30.9.2010 whereby for the first time the Mamlatdar pursuant application of the petitioner dated 7.4.2010 replied to the Deputy Collector, Veraval stating that the land in question is a Government land and Rambhai Boghabhai has encroached upon the land in question Page 80 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 (Rambhai Boghabhai is the son of Bogha Govind and that indicates that on 30.9.2010 the land was encroached upon by Rambhai Boghabhai and not by the petitioner). This letter also falsifies the claim of the petitioner that he and his father were in possession and were cultivating the land in question ever since in the year 1969 it was given on `santhani' basis to his father. Further, by way of another letter dated 12.5.2014 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat, the respondent No.6 once again reiterated the request for advance possession of the land bearing survey Nos. 843 paiki, 633 and 637. Both these communications were made in the year 2010 and 2014 i.e. much prior to the date of application made by the petitioner for acceptance of occupancy price made to the Mamlatdar, Kodinar on 2.5.2017. 10.8 The aforesaid fact would indicate that the respondent No.5 as well as the petitioner both were claiming the land bearing survey Nos.633 and 637 of village Sarkhadi, but on the respective date of application none of them were having any right, title Page 81 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 or interest over the said land, as per the record produced before this Court. Both made applications for allotment of the land in question for two different purposes. The petitioner claimed the land by stating that he is in possession of the land in question and raised contradictory grounds by stating that though the land was allotted on `santhani' basis to his father in the year 1969 at once he said that his father could not pay the occupancy price and hence he may be permitted to pay the same, whereas at some point he stated that though his father paid the occupancy price, as receipt could not be traced out the occupancy price along with interest may be accepted from him and land may be granted in his favour. Whereas, the respondent No.5 claimed the ownership of the land by seeking acquisition of the aforesaid land on the strength of Letter of Intent given to it by respondent No.6, therefore, mode of seeking allotment of land by the petitioner and respondent No.5 were different as the intention to use of land by both of them was for different purposes.
Page 82 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022
C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 10.9 These facts whereby a comparison in respect of interest of petitioner vis-à-vis respondent No.5 in respect of land in question are important to be borne in mind to determine the issues as to whether the respondent No.5 can be said to be an `aggrieved person' or not and to determine as to whether respondent No.5 has locus to prefer an application for leave to appeal before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department.
10.10 Now, if in light of the aforesaid facts, the judgments cited by learned Senior Advocates for the respective parties are considered, in that case, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kaina very heavily relied upon the judgment in the case of Adi Phirozshah Gandhi (supra), which is a judgment by a 5 Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein in paras 7 to 11, it is observed as under:
"[7] As a result of the frequent use of this rather vague phrase, which practice, as Lord Parker pointed out in Dealing Corporation v. Jones(1), has not been avoided, in spite of the confusion it causes, selections from the Page 83 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 observations of judges expounding the phrase in the context of these varied statutes were cited before us for our acceptance. The observations often conflict since they were made in different contexts and involved the special standing of the party claiming the right of appeal. Yet these definitions are not entirely without value for they disclose a certain unanimity on the, essential features of this phrase, even in the diversity of the contexts. The font and origin of the discussion is the well-known definition of the phrase by James L.J. in In Re Sidehotham Ex. j. Sidebotham(2). It was observed that the words person aggrieved' in s. 71 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1869 meant :
"Not really a person who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received, if some order had been made. A `person aggrieved', must be a man who had suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which had wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something."
[8] The definition was held in later cases to be not exhaustive and several other features of the phrase were pointed out. Thus under the Bankruptcy Acts, where the Board of Trade Page 84 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 summoned to support the validity of the appointment of a trustee, went before the judge, and failed, it was considered a person aggrieved' on the principle that a person who is brought before the Court to :submit to its decision, but not a person who is heard in a dispute between others must be treated as a person aggrieved' (see In Re Lamb Ex., p. Board of Trade(1) per Lord Esher). Here again the words to notice are brought before the-court to submit to its decision that, is to say, a person who is in the nature of a party as contra- distinguished from a person who is next described as a person who is heard in a dispute between others. To distinguish between these two positions Ist may refer to a few more decisions. In In Re Kitson, Ex. p. Sugden (Thomas) & Sons Ltd.(2), it was further explained that.
"the mere fact that an order is wrongly made does not of itself give a grievance to a person not otherwise aggrieved."
(per Phillimore J.) It was added that a person deprived of the fruits of litigation which he had instituted in the hope for them, is `a person aggrieved'. Similarly, a creditor who did not wish an adjudication order, to be made was held not-to be a person aggrieved-See In Re Brown Ex. p. Debtor v. Official Receiver. The utmost Page 85 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 that this series of cases goes is to be found in the observations of James L.J. in Ellis Ex. p. Ellis that even a person not bound by the order of adjudication must be treated as a person aggrieved' if the order embarrasses him. In a later case (In Re Woods Ex. P. Ditton) Cotton L.J. held that even so the person must be aggrieved by the very order and not by any of the consequences that ensue. This was clarified in R. v. London County Keepers of the Peace and Justices(6), by Lord Coleridge C.J. while dealing with the Highway Act, denying the right of appeal in these words:
"Is a person who cannot succeed in getting a conviction against another a person aggrieved ? He may be annoyed at finding that what he thought was a breach of the law is not a breach of law; but is he aggrieved because some one is held not to have done wrong ? It is difficult to see that the section meant anything of the kind. The section does not give an appeal to anybody but a person who is by the direct act of the Magistrate aggrieved that is who has had something done or determined against him by the Magistrate. "these observations again show that the person must himself suffer a grievance, or Page 86 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 must be aggrieved by the very order because it affects him.
[9] Two cases which may usefully be seen in the same context may next be mentioned. In Jennings v. Kelly(1) in relation to the Government of Ireland Act 1920, Lord Wright did say that if a person was treated in certiorari proceedings as a competent party and notice was served on him as being a proper party he would be a person aggrieved.' The point to bear in mind is that the person must be treated as a party. However the force of the observation was considerably weakened because the party there was ordered to pay costs and the right of appeal was held to be available on that limited ground. Further qualification is to be found in In Re Riviere (1884) 26 Ch. D. 48 where Lord Selborne observed:
"... It must be a legal grievance; it must not be a stet pro ratione voluntas; the applicant must not come merely saying I do not like this thing to be done, it must be shown that it tends to his injury, or to his damage, in the legal sense of the word. "the locus standi of the person aggrieved must be found from his position in the first proceeding and his grievance must arise from that standing taken with the effect of the order on him.Page 87 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022
C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 [10] These cases are of course far removed from the one before me and as Branwell L.J. observed in Robinson v. Currey(2) the expression is nowhere defined and, therefore, must be construed by reference to the context of the enactment in which it appears and all the circumstances. He pointed out that "the words are ordinarily English words, which are to have the ordinary meaning put upon them."
[11] From these cases it is apparent that may person who feels disappointed with the result of the case is not a Person aggrieved. He must be disappointed of a benefit which he would have received if the order had gone the other way. The,-order must cause him a legal grievance by wrongfully depriving him of something. It is no, doubt a legal grievance and not a grievance about material matters but his, legal grievance must be a tendency to injure that the order is wrong or that it acquits some one who he thinks ought to be convicted does not by itself give rise to a legal grievance. These principles are gathered from the cases cited and do not, as I shall show later, do violence to the context in which the phrase occurs in,the Advocates Act. Although I am aware that in Seven Oaks Urban District Council v. Twynham(1) Lord Hewart C.J. uttered words of caution, again emphasised by Lord Parker C.J. in Ealing Corporation v.
Page 88 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 Jones(2), in applying too readily the
definitions given in relation to other statutes but I do not think I am going beyond what Lord Hewart C.J. said and what Lord Parker C.J. did in the case. Lord Parker observed:
".... As Lord Hewart C.J. pointed out in Seven Oaks Urban District Council v. Twynam : But as has been said again and again there is often little utility in seeking to interpret particular expressions in one statute by reference to decisions given upon similar expressions in different statutes which have been enacted alio intuitu. The problem with which we are concerned is not, what is the meaning of the expression aggrieved' in any one of a dozen other statutes, but what is its meaning in this part of this statute ?' Accordingly, I only look at the cases to which we have been referred to see if there are general-principles which can be extracted which will guide the court in approaching the question as to what the words person aggrieved' mean in any particular statute." If I may say respectfully I fully endorse this approach.
I am now in a position to examine the Advocates' Act but before so I must refer to a case near in point to this case, than any considered before.Page 89 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022
C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 10.11 The aforesaid judgment was subsequently considered in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) and the judgment of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir was followed in the case of Shri Vavdi Seva Sahkari Mandli Limited (supra). By relying upon the aforesaid three judgments, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina tried to canvass that the respondent No.5 had merely applied for the land in question, no legal right was ever created in favour of the respondent No.5 and therefore, by way of order passed by the Collector dated 17.12.2017 when the land in question was granted in favour of the petitioner, no legal right of the respondent No.5 can be said to have been affected. As the respondent No.5 was only hoping that the land may be allotted to him and because of the order dated 17.12.2020, the petitioner at the most can be said to be disappointed, but as in the entire proceedings pursuant to which order dated 17.12.2020 was passed by the Collector, at no point of time the respondent No.5 was a necessary party as none of his rights were ever affected by way of the aforesaid proceedings. Therefore, since none of the rights of Page 90 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 the respondent No.5 were affected, it cannot be said that the respondent No.5 has received any legal injury as no legal right was ever created in its favour.
10.12 However, the aforesaid judgments as well as the submission of learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina are required to be considered in light of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue on hand in the case of Samir Agrawal (supra). The judgment in the case of Samir Agrawal (supra) is though a judgment by three Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken into consideration the judgment of Adi Phirozshah Gandhi (supra) and after considering the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 19, 20 and 21 observes as under:
"19. With the question of the Informant's locus standi out of the way, one more important aspect needs to be decided, and that is the submission of Shri Rao, that in any case, a person like the Informant cannot be said to be a "person aggrieved" for the purpose of sections 53B and 53T of the Act. Shri Rao relies heavily upon Adi Page 91 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 Pherozshah Gandhi (supra), in which section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 came up for consideration, which spoke of the right of appeal of "any person aggrieved" by an order of the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council. It was held that since the Advocate General could not be said to be a person aggrieved by an order made by the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council against a particular advocate, he would have no locus standi to appeal to the Bar Council of India. In so saying, the Court held:
"11. From these cases it is apparent that any person who feels disappointed with the result of the case is not a "person aggrieved". He must be disappointed of a benefit which he would have received if the order had gone the other way. The order must cause him a legal grievance by wrongfully depriving him of something. It is no doubt a legal grievance and not a grievance about material matters but his legal grievance must be a tendency to injure him. That the order is wrong or that it acquits some one who he thinks ought to be convicted does not by itself give rise to a legal grievance...."
20. 19. It must immediately be pointed out that Page 92 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 this provision of the Advocates Act, 1961 is in the context of a particular advocate being penalized for professional or other misconduct, which concerned itself with an action in personam, unlike the present case, which is concerned with an action in rem. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment in A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P., (2011) 7 SCC 616, in which the expression "person aggrieved"
in section 198(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when it came to an offence punishable under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (being the offence of bigamy), was under consideration. It was held that a "person aggrieved" need not only be the first wife, but can also include a second "wife" who may complain of the same. In so saying, the Court held:
"25. Even otherwise, as explained earlier, the second wife suffers several legal wrongs and/or legal injuries when the second marriage is treated as a nullity by the husband arbitrarily, without recourse to the court or where a declaration sought is granted by a competent court. The expression "aggrieved person" denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its Page 93 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which the contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of complainant's interest and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant. Section 494 does not restrict the right of filing complaint to the first wife and there is no reason to read the said section in a restricted manner as is suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant. Section 494 does not say that the complaint for commission of offence under the said section can be filed only by the wife living and not by the woman with whom the subsequent marriage takes place during the lifetime of the wife living and which marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such wife. The complaint can also be filed by the person with whom the second marriage takes place which is void by reason of its taking place during the life of the first wife."
"21 Clearly, therefore, given the context of the Act in which the CCI and the NCLAT deal with practices which have an adverse effect on competition in derogation of the interest of consumers, it is clear that the Act vests powers Page 94 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 in the CCI and enables it to act in rem, in public interest. This would make it clear that a "person aggrieved" must, in the context of the Act, be understood widely and not be constructed narrowly, as was done in Adi Pherozshah Gandhi (supra). Further, it is not without significance that the expressions used in sections 53B and 53T of the Act are "any person", thereby signifying that all persons who bring to the CCI information of practices that are contrary to the provisions of the Act, could be said to be aggrieved by an adverse order of the CCI in case it refuses to act upon the information supplied. By way of contrast, section 53N(3) speaks of making payment to an applicant as compensation for the loss or damage caused to the applicant as a result of any contravention of the provisions of Chapter II of the Act, having been committed by an enterprise. By this sub-section, clearly, therefore, "any person" who makes an application for compensation, under sub-section (1) of section 53N of the Act, would refer only to persons who have suffered loss or damage, thereby, qualifying the expression "any person"
as being a person who has suffered loss or damage. Thus, the preliminary objections against the Informant/Appellant filing Information before the CCI and filing an appeal before the NCLAT are rejected."Page 95 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022
C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 10.13 In view of the aforesaid judgment since the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the word `person aggrieved' by keeping in mind the fact that the CCI and NCLAT deal with practices which have an adverse effect on competition in derogation of interest of the consumer and since the Act vests power in CCI which enable it to act in ram or in public interest, the word `person aggrieved' must be construed in the context of the Act and to be understood widely and not to be constructed narrowly as was done in the case of Adi Phorizshah Gandhi. Now in this context, keeping this judgment in mind, coupled with the ratio laid down in the judgment in the cases of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai (supra) as well as Hemant Pragbhai Patel (supra) this Court has considered the fact that the application made for grant of land by the petitioner was for his own purpose. Whereas, the respondent No.5 was seeking acquisition of the land in question for development of Simar Port as an all whether direct berthing port for which even MoU was also came to be signed between respondent No.5 and respondent No.6 during Vibrant Gujarat Summit, 2011. In fact, a tripartite agreement Page 96 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 was signed between the Government of Gujarat, Gujarat Maritime Board and respondent No.5 on 29.1.2015 and as per the said agreement, after a period of 30 years, the port would be handed over to the Government, which can be said to be of larger public importance. Therefore, keeping the object behind the request for acquisition of the land in question, the word `person aggrieved' is required to be considered. As discussed earlier, keeping the ratio laid down by way of judgment of Samir Agrawal (supra), Jashbhai Motibhai Desai (supra) and Hemant Pragbhai Patel (supra), while interpreting the word `aggrieved person', what is required to be seen is the nature of dispute, factors attributing to the controversy as well as the circumstances which have led to the dispute. For that there cannot be any straight jacket formula. To determine the person aggrieved, the Court is required to look at the issue by giving wider perspective to the controversy in question rather than rigidly interpreting the word `person aggrieved'. The Court is required to take into consideration various aspects such as, similarity or disparity in respect of the status and circumstances Page 97 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 between the person who is claiming to be the `person aggrieved' vis-à-vis the person in whose favour the order is passed. The Court is required to see the object behind the actual dispute as the word 'person aggrieved' can be determined only in respect of the nature of controversy and not in general. 10.14 Therefore, if we compare petitioner's personal interest in respect of the land in question vis-à-vis the interest of respondent No.5 as well as the purpose for which the land was required by petitioner as well as the respondent No.5, in that case, this Court is of the view that to determine the `person aggrieved', the Court is required to consider the overall consideration of the injury that may be suffered by respondent No.5 on account of grant of land in favour of the petitioner.
10.15 In the instant case, except for the land in question, no other factor is similar in respect of the petitioner and respondent No.5. Both applied for grant / acquisition of the land in question for different purposes and under different Page 98 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 capacities. Though the Collector, Gir Somnath considered the application of the petitioner by resorting to various Government Resolutions of the State Government as well as upon some past precedents, the Collector, Gir Somnath overlooked the fact as to who made an application for land prior in point of time and the purpose behind requirement of the land in question. This Court is mindful of the fact that this Court has to confine itself only to the fact as to whether the respondent No.5 has locus to prefer an application for leave to appeal or not and whether any such application at the instance of a third party i.e. respondent No.5 is maintainable or not. Therefore, this Court leaves the aforesaid questions here itself and does not deem it appropriate to go further into it.
10.16 However, this Court cannot overlook the fact that the respondent No.5's project is backed by State Government and respondent No.6 by way of a tripartite agreement, through respondent No.6 application for acquisition of the land was made to the Collector, Gir Somnath who passed order dated Page 99 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 17.12.2010 in favour of the petitioner. Demand for the land in question had come from respondent no.5 in the year 2010 and at no point of time the same was rejected by considering the merit, but the same was rejected only on the ground of encroachment on the land in question. When the application made by the respondent No.5 was never considered by the Collector, Gir Somnath on merit and when the application of the respondent No.5 was prior in point of time, the Collector vide order dated 17.12.2020 granted the land in question in favour of the petitioner.
10.17 As can be seen from the communication dated 12.5.2014 by respondent No.6 to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (page 282) whereby a specific request was made to allotment of land bearing survey Nos.633 and 637 in favour of respondent No.5, Which would indicate that though the petitioner and respondent No.5 both were neither in possession of the land in question nor had any right, title or interest in the land in question immediately before they made their respective applications for Page 100 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 allotment of the said land. Therefore, the question of `aggrieved person' is required to be determined in the context of applications for allotment of land made by the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent No.5 and not by taking into consideration that the proceedings before the Collector, which were initiated vide application made by the petitioner before the Mamlatdar on 2.5.2017 for grant of land wherein respondent No.5 was never a party nor can he be expected as a party because those proceedings were in respect of re-grant of land which was allotted to father of the petitioner before 50 years. The case of the petitioner for re-grant of land was considered by the Collector on merit pursuant to his application made in the year 2017. Whereas, the case of respondent No.5 for allotment of the very land for larger public interest was never considered on merit by the Collector nor was it considered vis-a-vis object for allotment of land by comparing the case of the petitioner with the case of respondent No.5 as both were seeking allotment of the same same land. Since case of respondent No.5 was never considered on merit vis-a-vis case of the petitioner on merit and Page 101 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 the order dated 17.12.2020 was passed by keeping in mind the order dated 25.3.1969 passed by the Collector, Gir Somnath granting the land in question in favour of the petitioner without considering the application made on behalf of respondent No.5 can definitely said to have been caused injury to the respondent No.5, and therefore, the respondent No.5 can be said to be an `aggrieved person' and accordingly respondent No.5 is held to be an `aggrieved person'.
10.18 Since the respondent No.5 is now held to be an `aggrieved person', because of allotment of land in question in favour of the petitioner, the only remedy available to the respondent No.5 would be to challenge the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the Collector, Gir Somnath by way of filing a proper application before the appropriate authority. Therefore, this Court holds that the respondent No.5 has the locus to challenge the order dated 17.12.2020 even if the respondent No.5 was never party to any of the proceedings before the revenue authorities. Page 102 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 10.19 As far as the question as to whether a revision application or an application for leave to appeal at the instance of third party would be maintainable or not is concerned, the learned Advocate General relied upon a decision in the case of Muman Habib Nasir Khanji (supra), whereas, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi relied upon a judgment in the case of Kamlaben Babarbhai Solanki through Power of Attorney (supra). In the judgment of Kamlaben Babarbhai Solanki (supra), the judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate General in case of Muman Habib Nasir Khanji (supra) is already considered and by considering the Division Bench judgment, the learned Single Judge in paras 5 and 6 of the judgment observed as under:
"5. In the opinion of the court, the three fold contentions raised by the learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Mehta for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 are answered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Muman Habib Nasir Khanji v/s. State (Supra). The contention with regard to filing of appeal under Section 203 of the Code has been dealt with in Para-17 thereof, which reads as under-Page 103 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022
C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 "17- This section provides for an appeal against the order of a revenue officer whether passed under the Bombay Land Revenue Code or under any law for the time being in force to that officers immediate superior. Secondly such an appeal lies against original as well as appellate decision. The question which arises for our consideration is:- what is the meaning of the phrase to that officers immediate superior? It is true that the words immediate superior officer have not been used in sec.203 but only the words immediate superior have been used. Looking to the context in which they have been used the words immediate superior connote immediate superior officer. Since the word officer has already been used immediately before the words immediate superior it has not been repeated after those words. Mr. Shelat contends that the phrase immediate superior means immediate superior authority. He therefore further proceeds to content that if the words immediate superior are construed so as to mean immediate superior authority sec.203 will permit an appeal from the decision of the Collector even under sec.211 of the Code to the State Government. We are unable to accept this contention of Mr. Shelat for Page 104 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 several reasons. Firstly it appears to us that reading sec.203 as a whole and reading the words immediate superior in the context in which they have been used it is very clear that they have been used to connote and mean immediate superior officer. Since the words immediate superior are immediately preceded by the word officer as stated above the Legislature has thought fit not to repeat it after them. If it was the intention of the Legislature that immediate superior must mean immediate superior authority nothing would have been easier for it then to use the words immediate superior authority instead of only using the words immediate superior. A word can be left to be understood in the context of the language if it occurs in the earlier part of a sentence. An altogether new word which has not occurred anywhere earlier in a sentence ordinarily will not be left to be understood in the context. It therefore appears to us that the word officer has been left to be understood after the phrase immediate superior. In this view of the matter it appears to us that sec.203 contemplates an appellate hierarchy of revenue officers from the lowest to the highest. Now the State Government is not and cannot be superior officer Under the Constitution of India and Page 105 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 also under the earlier Constitution Acts it has been an ultimate executive authority in respect of the matters assigned to it.
Therefore the State Government is not an immediate officer within the meaning of sec.203."
6 In view of the aforesaid observation made by the Division Bench, the submission of Mr. Mehta that the petitioner was required to file appeal under Section 203 of the said Act, cannot be accepted. So far as the contention with regard to non-maintainability of the Revision Application under section 211 at the instance of Private party is concerned, it has been specifically held in the said decision that it is open to the State Government under Section 211 to exercise revisional powers either suo moto or otherwise and to examine the order or decision of the Collector to find out whether it is legal and proper. On plain reading of Section 211, it clearly transpires that it is a residuary section in the sense that an officer empowered by that section on his own motion or otherwise can correct or set-aside an erroneous decision of the subordinate officer. This power could be exercised by the State government or revenue officer at the instance of any person, even if he is not the aggrieved party. There is nothing in the said Section to suggest that it could be invoked suo moto only and not at the Page 106 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 instance of the aggrieved or private party. The court therefore does not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Mehta that the Revision Application at the instance of the petitioner was not maintainable before the respondent no.1."
10.20 Further, the Division Bench in the case of Muman Habib Naris Khanji (supra) observed in para 26 as under:
"26. Mr. Patel's next submission is that in any case an appeal by respondents No. 2 to 5 was not competent because they had no right to file an appeal to the State Government. In view of our finding that the State Government has only revisional jurisdiction in the matter under Section 211, this question need not detain us any longer. The question whether respondents Nos. 2 to 5 had any right of appeal or not against the decision of the Collector loses its significance and value in view of the fact that under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code the State Government can exercise revisional powers suo motu. Therefore, the function and role of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 ended with their bringing this matter to the notice of the State Government. Thereafter, it was within the discretion of the State Page 107 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 Government to take further steps in the matter or not to take any. The State Government may exercise its powers under Section 211 either on its own motion or otherwise or may not exercise them at all. In this view of the matter the question whether respondents Nos. 2 to 5 had a right to file an appeal or not does not arise. We, therefore, reject the second part of Mr. Patel's contention that the proceedings before the State Government were incompetent because the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 had no right to file an appeal against the decision of the Collector.
In view of this finding of ours it is not
necessary for us to deal with Mr. Shelat's
counter contention that respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are 'persons interested' or 'persons aggrieved'. So also it is not necessary for us to refer to the case of Punjabhai v. Jayantilal reported in 6 G.L.R. 849 which deals with the question as to who is 'a person interested' or 'a person aggrieved'."
10.21 Both the aforesaid judgments, categorically held that it is at the discretion of the State Government under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code to decide whether to exercise the powers of revision or not. The Government may exercise its powers under Section 211 either on its own motion or Page 108 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 otherwise or may not exercise them at all. The function and role of a third party is to bring that matter to the notice of the State Government which is the order passed by the Collector, Gir Somnath in the instant case. Further, even the language of Section 211 also nowhere prohibits that except for a person who is party to the proceedings, no other person can seek revision of a decision or an order passed by any revenue officer not inferior in rank to Assistant or Deputy Collector.
10.22 The aforesaid judgment as well as language of Section 211 would make it amply clear that what is required for testing the order passed by the Collector is to bring to the notice of the State Government by making necessary application and thereafter it is the discretion of the State Government to decide as to whether to exercise the revisional power or not. In the instant case, the respondent No.5 had preferred leave to appeal challenging the order dated 17.12.2020 and upon his application the respondent - Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department passed an order on 30.9.2021 Page 109 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 whereby the leave to appeal application was granted on a note for speaking to minutes. Meaning thereby, the State thought it fit to exercise its power of revision under Section 211 and hence the application for leave to appeal preferred by respondent No.5 can be said to be maintainable and accordingly it is held maintainable.
10.23 As far as grievance of learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina about the fact that any procedure or nomenclature like note for speaking to minutes is not there in Bombay Land Revenue Code nor there is any practice nor it finds place in rules of business is concerned, what is required to be seen is whether on a particular day while passing the order whether something was omitted which was though a part of order could not find a place on paper. Therefore, in this regard, this Court has considered the submission of learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi whereby the learned Senior Advocate relied upon the judgment in the case of Ramdas Shrinivas Naik (supra) wherein in para 4, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: Page 110 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022
C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 "4 When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney General to the concession made before the High Court, Shri A.K. Sen, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay before us intervened and protested that he never made any such concession and invited us to peruse the written submissions made by him in the High Court. We are afraid that we cannot launch into an inquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public Policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. "Judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation".(1) We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement of the judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the Page 111 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges, to call attention of the very judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. (2) That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an appellate Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment."
10.24 In view of the aforesaid judgment cited by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi, what can be seen is that when something is recorded by the judges in their judgment, the same cannot be allowed to be contradicted by statement at Bar or by affidavit or by any other evidence. If judges say in their judgment that something was done said or admitted before them that has to be the last word on the subject. However, if a party thinks that the Page 112 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 happenings in the court proceedings are wrongly recorded in a judgment, then as per the aforesaid judgment, it is incumbent upon the party while the matter is very fresh in the minds of the judges to draw attention of very judges to have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to a particular statement was an error and that is the only way by which the record can be corrected. In the instant case, the first order was passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department on 8.7.2021 whereby though the Secretary (Appeals) was pleased to grant leave to appeal the same did not transcribe in the order dated 8.7.2021 and therefore, on 18.8.2021 an application for leave to appeal was filed by the respondent No.5. The petitioner by filing a written reply even objected to the said application. However, vide order dated 30.9.2021 the learned Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department passed an order whereby the application for leave to appeal was granted and the same was amended and thereby the order dated 8.7.2021 was corrected. Now if the authority has committed some mistake, to rectify that mistake if there is no specific procedure prescribed under the Page 113 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 Act or Rules or Rules of Business, in that case merely because that procedure does not find a place in the statute or rules of business, a party cannot be rendered remediless. What is paramount is to ensure that the ends of justice is served and correct facts are recorded in the order. Hence, the only way to bring it to the notice of the authority that something has remained to be transcribed in the order though was pronounced in the court is by way of an appropriate application. Nomenclature of the said application may be anything but what is required to be seen is what is the prayer made by way of that application. By way of a note for speaking to minutes the respondent No.5 had prayed for the following relief:
"Your Honour may be pleased to pass appropriate order, so as to transcribe the order upon the application seeking leave to fine appeal, which was orally granted at the time of hearing, but left out to be typed in the order dated 08.07.2021".
10.25 It is noteworthy that the aforesaid Page 114 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 application for speaking to minutes was affirmed by advocate himself who appeared before the authority on 6.7.2021, whereas, the petitioner himself has admitted that as he did not receive the notice in time, he could not remain present before the authority on 6.7.2021. The aforesaid prayer would itself indicate that the note was filed just to correct the record as something which was done during the course of hearing and though an order was passed the same was not transcribed on paper, and therefore, considering the purpose for which note for speaking to minutes was filed, the same cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the provisions of the law. 10.26 Further, when the advocate who appeared in the matter himself has filed an affidavit by filing a note for speaking to minutes and the same was believed by the authority and thereby allowed the note for speaking to minutes vide order dated 30.9.2021. The said order cannot be said to be an illegal order as the advocate for the respondent No.5 who appeared before the authority pointed out about the omission of the fact that leave to appeal was Page 115 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 granted but not transcribed in the order. The same was accepted by the authority, more particularly, when there is an admission on the part of the writ petitioner that the aforesaid order was passed in his absence, the order dated 30.9.2021 cannot said to be illegal.
10.27 As far as learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina's contention about the fact that application for leave to appeal though was filed belatedly the same was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay is concerned, what is required to be seen by the Court is that the order which was sought to be challenged by way of leave to appeal was an order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the Collector, Gir Somnath. The application for leave to appeal was filed by respondent No.5 on 7.6.2021 as can be seen from the record. At that time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order about cessation of applicability of limitation Act was in force, and therefore, even if the application for leave to appeal was not accompanied by application for condonation of delay, the same cannot be said to have filed without Page 116 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 following the due procedure.
10.28 As far as the submission of learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina about the fact that if the respondent No.5 want the land for their purpose, in that case they could have negotiated with the petitioner is concerned, this Court is not dealing with the aforesaid submission as if this Court deals with the aforesaid submission, that will amount to entering into the merit of the matter.
10.29 As far as the contention of learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina about the ex parte relief being granted in favour of the respondent No.5 till the final disposal of the revision application and hence his prayer for quashing the order dated 8.7.2021 is concerned, this Court is of the view that considering the fact that after the order dated 30.9.2021 was passed by respondent No.1 for about more than 6 months the petition has remained pending before this Court. Further, the order dated 8.7.2021 is an interim order whereby the ad-interim relief is granted in favour of respondent No.5 and hence the Page 117 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 same is not a final order. It appears from the record that the petitioner has not yet filed reply to the revision application, and therefore, the interest of justice would be served if the directions are issued to the Secretary (Appeals) to hear and decide the revision application being Revision Applicant No.MVV/ JMN/GIR/11/2021 is directed to be heard and decided expeditiously. Hence, the parties are directed to complete the pleadings latest by 31.7.2022, the arguments of the parties shall be completed by 15.9.2022 and the learned Secretary (Appeals) is directed to pronounce the order latest by 31.10.2022. Further all the parties are directed to cooperate in the pending proceedings before the SSRD and are directed not to resort to unnecessary adjournments unless there are compelling circumstances. 10.30 It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merit of the matter and all the observations made by this Court in this order are prima facie and tentative in nature and the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department is directed to hear and decide the revision application pending before it on Page 118 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022 C/SCA/11744/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022 its own merit on the basis of material that may be made available before him without being influenced by the observations made in this order.
11 In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that while passing the order dated 8.7.2021 and 30.9.2021, respondent No.1 has not committed any error or illegality. Further, this Court is of the view that at the application for leave to appeal by respondent No.5 before the respondent No.1 is maintainable and hence the petition fails and the same is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) P. SUBRAHMANYAM Page 119 of 119 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 26 21:27:49 IST 2022