Gujarat High Court
Dashratbhai Baldevbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & 8 on 30 August, 2017
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani
C/SCA/15879/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15879 of 2017
==========================================================
DASHRATBHAI BALDEVBHAI PATEL....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 8....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NV GANDHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 30/08/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner herein has invoked extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner is the third party, challenging the order dated 10.08.2012, passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/AMD/97 of 2017, whereby the Secretary (Appeals) directed the parties to maintain status quo in relation to the land bearing survey No.1983 paiki 3 admeasuring 0-76-89 H-Are-Sq.mtrs. situated at Sanand, District Ahmedabad.
2. Shri Chhatrasinh Ranjitsinh Vaghela-respondent No.9 herein had purchased the said land as agricultural land and Page 1 of 10 HC-NIC Page 1 of 10 Created On Sat Sep 09 10:05:43 IST 2017 C/SCA/15879/2017 ORDER mutation entry No.12974 dated 21.04.1982 was certified in his name on 22.05.1982.
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that names of respondent Nos.5 to8 were entered in relation to the half portion of the agricultural land although they did not have any blood relationship and they were not the family members of the original owners nor of respondent No.9. The registered sale deed which had been effected also is alleged to be by way of fabricated sale document. Mutation entry No.13222 dated 10.01.1983, in the name of respondent Nos.5 to 8 had been mutated in the record of rights. It is also the case of the petitioner that, physically the possession of the property continued with the respondent No.9.
4. The respondent No.9 challenged the action of the respondent Nos.5 to 8 by way of preferring an RTS Appeal No.225 of 2014 before the Deputy Collector and Prant Officer, Sanand, District Ahmedabad by challenging the mutation entry No.13222 recorded in favour of the respondent Nos.5 to
8. The respondent No.9 also filed delay condonation application. Regular Civil Suit ('RCS' for short) No.131 of 2014 against these respondents Nos.5 to 8 also has been preferred by the very respondents No.9, wherein he sought Page 2 of 10 HC-NIC Page 2 of 10 Created On Sat Sep 09 10:05:43 IST 2017 C/SCA/15879/2017 ORDER for temporary injunction pending the suit. The application for injunction is still pending before the Court concerned as according to the petitioner, respondents did not file their appearance.
5. In the mean time, the Deputy Collector and Prant Officer, Sanand, District Ahmedabad examined the record of the mutation entry and set aside the said entry No.13003 of 2003 dated 24.05.1982 and also the entry No.13222 dated 10.01.1983. It is further averred that the sale document was registered on 21.01.1983, which is subsequent to the date on which the sale entry was posted and certified.
6. The respondents Nos.5 to 8 had preferred the Revision Application No.466 of 2015 before the District Collector, who vide its order dated 20.03.2017 rejected the application concurring with the view taken by the Deputy Collector and Prant Officer.
7. Aggrieved respondents preferred Revision Application before the learned Secretary (Appeal) being 97 of 2017, wherein the stay application has also been preferred. It is further his say that, pursuant to the orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the Deputy Collector and Collector, the name of the respondent No.9 was restored to Page 3 of 10 HC-NIC Page 3 of 10 Created On Sat Sep 09 10:05:43 IST 2017 C/SCA/15879/2017 ORDER the record of rights and the respondent No.9 effected the registered sale deed in the name of the present petitioner on 05.06.2017. The petitioner has purchased the land in question for sale consideration of Rs.42,70,000/- (Rupees Fourtytwo Lakh Seventy Thousand Only), vide serial No.4368 registered before the Sub-Registrar, SRO, Sanand.
8. Pursuant to such registration of sale deed, in the Revision Application pending before the Secretary (Appeal), the petitioner preferred an application to implead himself as a party and he has been permitted to be impleaded as a party opponent. The stay application preferred by the respondent Nos.5 to 8 has been resisted by the petitioner and learned Special Secretary after recording the submissions, directed the parties to maintain status quo and has fixed the final hearing of the said revision on 04.09.2017, therefore, the present petition.
9. The learned advocate Mr.Gandhi appearing for the petitioner has urged that the order passed by the learned Secretary (Appeal) is contrary to law, as the order is passed without giving any reason much less the cogent reasons. In support of such submissions, learned advocate has sought to rely on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in case of Page 4 of 10 HC-NIC Page 4 of 10 Created On Sat Sep 09 10:05:43 IST 2017 C/SCA/15879/2017 ORDER M/s Shree Mahavir Carbon Ltd. vs. Om Prakash Jalan (Financer) and anr reported in AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 408. It is further urged by the learned advocate that it is the function of the Civil Court to grant injunction and not of the revenue authority, Civil Suit is already pending and no injunction so far has been given by the Civil Court. No case is made out by the parties for grant of such injunction. The learned advocate has further relied on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Nidhi Kaim and Anr vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2017 SC 986 to urge that no person can retain anything which has been obtained by fraud, as fraud unravels everything. According to learned advocate when Deputy Collector and Collector both could pierce through the fraud which has been alleged against the respondent Nos.5 to 8, the authority concerned ought to have granted any order of status quo.
10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr.Sharma waives service of notice for and on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 with the consent of both the sides, the and matter has been taken up for hearing at the admission stage.
11. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, order impugned is an innocuous order, which should not be Page 5 of 10 HC-NIC Page 5 of 10 Created On Sat Sep 09 10:05:43 IST 2017 C/SCA/15879/2017 ORDER objected to by either side and when the authority concerned has posted the matter on 04.09.2017 for final hearing there arises no question of interfering at this juncture. It is further his say that considering the fact that pending the proceeding, the present petitioner has purchased the property, for preventing any multiplicity of the proceedings, the authority concerned has justifiably and wisely ordered maintenance of status quo and therefore also, no entertainment of the present petition is desirable.
12. Having thus heard both the sides and also on perusal of the record for the reasons to follow hereinafter this petition desirous no entertainment.
13. Ordinarily, against any interim relief which prejudices neither side and which finally determines no right, no writ jurisdiction requires to be invoked. In the instant case, what is challenged by way of the order impugned is of directing status quo to all parties, who are before it in the Revision Application No.97 of 2017. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that, the respondent No.9 and respondent Nos.5 to 8 have been litigating in respect of the very land in question for a protracted time period. It would not be out of place to refer to the entry which has been mutated in the name of Page 6 of 10 HC-NIC Page 6 of 10 Created On Sat Sep 09 10:05:43 IST 2017 C/SCA/15879/2017 ORDER respondent Nos.5 to 8 on 10.01.1983. The same had been challenged by the respondent No.9 and before the Deputy Collector and Collector both respondent No.9 succeeded.
13.1 Aggrieved respondent Nos.5 to 8 have preferred this Revision Application. It is also noteworthy that during the pendency of this Revision Application, the name of the respondent No.9 is restored to the revenue record and though the application for injunction of respondent Nos.5 to 8 had been pending from 09.05.2017, the respondent No.9 has chosen to transfer the land by way of registered sale deed in favour of the present petitioner on 05.06.2017 and thus, the petitioner herein has chosen to step into the shoes of the respondent No.9, who had been litigating so far with the respondent Nos.5 to 8. It is obviously for this reason that the revisional authority has deemed it appropriate and rightly so, to prevent any multiplicity of proceeding, to direct status quo against all parties so that further change of hands may not result into additional proceeding. 13.2 It is also incorrect to say on the part of petitioner that the revisional authority has not given Page 7 of 10 HC-NIC Page 7 of 10 Created On Sat Sep 09 10:05:43 IST 2017 C/SCA/15879/2017 ORDER any reason for directing the status quo to the parties. The order impugned clearly has referred to the registered sale deed effected in favour of the present petitioner. Moreover, the Civil Suit being Regular Civil Suit No.131 of 2014 preferred by the respondent No.9 against the respondent Nos.5 to 8 is pending till date and application for injunction has not been pursued by the respondent No.9. It is the competent Civil Court which will be in a position to determine the right of ownership of the parties in respect of the land in question. However, no promptness appears to have been shown by the party respondents in proceeding the matter before the Civil Court. As both the sides have been pursuing the matter before the revenue authority, the revisional authority was justified and committed no error in directing the parties to maintain status quo till the matter is finally heard. 13.3 One of the contentions raised by the learned advocate is the undue haste reflected by the revisional authority in fixing the matter on 04.09.2017.
14. In the opinion of this Court, the said allegation is also baseless when the authority concerned has deemed it fit to direct the maintenance of status quo, it also has shown Page 8 of 10 HC-NIC Page 8 of 10 Created On Sat Sep 09 10:05:43 IST 2017 C/SCA/15879/2017 ORDER requisite promptness in deciding the matter finally without allowing the either side to take any disadvantage of such an order of status quo. In no which way, this Court has found any justification in interfering with the order impugned.
15. So far as the judgment of the Apex Court sought to be relied upon in case of Nidhi Kaim and Anr vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra), it is a matter of inquiry by the concerned authority, whether in fact, it was the fraud which had led to mutating of the entries in the name of the respondent Nos.5 to 8. The revisional authority is yet to adjudicate upon the said issue which is also at large before the competent Civil Court. Ratio laid down in the said judgment would have no applicability presently, when this Court is examining the aspect of grant of status quo at an interim stage by the revisional authority.
16. In case of M/s Shree Mahavir Carbon Ltd. vs. Om Prakash Jalan (Financer) and anr (Supra) insistence is of the order to be a speaking order.
17. The revisional authority as observed herein before has given the brief and precise reason by stating that there is a prima facie case of the revisionist before it. It also held that Page 9 of 10 HC-NIC Page 9 of 10 Created On Sat Sep 09 10:05:43 IST 2017 C/SCA/15879/2017 ORDER during the pendency of hearing of application or injunction, transfer by way of sale has been effected in favour of the present petitioner and there is a possibility of further transfer of the said land and therefore, for preventing the multiplicity of proceeding, the parties are required to be directed to maintain status quo.
18. Petition being devoid of any substance deserves rejection in limine. Needless to say that the revisional authority shall be determining the issues which are at large before it, in accordance with law. None of the observations made by this Court in this order shall influence the authority concerned in deciding the Revision Application on the scheduled date. All the petitioners shall cooperate in early hearing of the Revision Application.
The present petition is rejected accordingly.
(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) MIRZA Page 10 of 10 HC-NIC Page 10 of 10 Created On Sat Sep 09 10:05:43 IST 2017