Gujarat High Court
Ajit Jemalji Rathod vs Ravjibhai Meghjibhai Chauhan on 6 January, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 2448 of
2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 67 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 67 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 67 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2449 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 68 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 68 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7375 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 68 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7375 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
=============================================
AJIT JEMALJI RATHOD & ORS.
Versus
RAVJIBHAI MEGHJIBHAI CHAUHAN & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,10,11,11.1,12,13,14,14.1,15,16,16.1,17,18,18.1,19,19.1,2,20,20.1
,21,22,22.1,23,23.1,24,24.1,25,26,26.1,27,27.1,28,29,3,30,30.1,31,
32,33,34,34.1,35,36,37,4,4.1,5,5.1,6,7,7.1,8,8.1,9
MR. NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,10,11,11.1,12,13,14,14.1,15,16,16.1,17,18,18.1,19,19.1,2,20,20.1
,21,22,22.1,23,23.1,24,24.1,25,26,26.1,27,27.1,28,29,3,30,30.1,31,
32,33,34,34.1,35,36,37,4,4.1,5,5.1,6,7,7.1,8,8.1,9
Page 1 of 19
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025
undefined
MS. HETAL PATEL ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 4
MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 7
MR VEDANT D GAIKWAD(10444) for the Respondent(s) No. 11,6
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 10,5
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 06/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) Heard learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the record.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL) NO. 2448 of 2022.
1. The application seeking leave to appeal has been filed by 37 persons with the assertion that they are owners and occupants of different plots situated at Survey No. 94/2 of Village Timbdi, Taluka and District Morbi.
2. It is submitted that different plots carved out of Survey No. 94/2 of Village Timbdi, Taluka and District Morbi have been allotted to the applicants by the competent authorities under different housing schemes of the State Government for the persons below poverty line. Each plot allotted to the applicants herein comprised of 100 sq.mts and all the applicants fall under the category of being below poverty line. The petitioners had invested their hard earned Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined money for putting up constructions of their residential houses on the plots allotted to them. It is submitted that the Applicant Nos. 34 to 37 are auction purchasers of the plots in an auction sale held on 11.09.1990 and 22.03.1999 and they too belonged to the backward categories.
3. All the applicants would submit that they have constructed their houses over the plots in question and they, though, being necessary parties but had not been impleaded before the writ Court. They are, thus, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 09.06.2022 in allowing the writ petition with the observation that the land in question namely Survey No. 304/1 located in village Pipli had been leased to the original petitioner and the possession of the said land shall remain with the petitioner, which shall not be disturbed without following due process of law.
4. Taking note of the contention of the application seeking leave to appeal and the reply submitted by the respondent, the application seeking leave to appeal is hereby allowed.
5. We may further note that while entertaining the application seeking leave to appeal, while issuing notices to the original petitioners / respondents herein, by the order dated 03.10.2022 this Court has passed an order staying effect and operation of the judgment and order dated 09.06.2022 passed in the Special Civil Application No.7375 of 2016 until further orders, which is operating as on date.
Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined
6. By means of the judgment and order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, two connected Special Civil Application No.142 of 2001 and Special Civil Application No.7375 of 2016 had been decided. While the Special Civil Application No. 142 of 2001 had been dismissed confirming the order dated 13-16/10/2000, the Special Civil Application No.7375 of 2016 has been allowed. The present Letters Patent Appeal hasbeen filed challenging the judgment and order dated 09.06.2022 allowing the aforesaid writ petition.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL) NO. 2449 of 2022.
1. Another Letters Patent Appeal No. 68 OF 2025 has been filed with the application seeking leave to appeal by 10 applicants stating that auction in favour of the applicants was challenged in the Special Civil Application No.142 of 2001, which petition had been dismissed however, they were necessary and proper party in the Special Civil Application No.7375 of 2016 and they were never made parties to the said writ petition, which has been filed on an altogether different grounds with the relief sought by the original petitioner with respect to the land in question which was auctioned in favour of the applicants by following due process of law.
7. Taking note of the above statement in the application seeking leave to appeal and the reply submitted by the respondents herein / original petitioners, we allow the application seeking leave to appeal.
Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined
8. The office is directed to allot regular number to both the above noted appeals.
COMMON JUDGMENT IN LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 67 of 2025 AND LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 68 of 2025
1. As the appeals are arising out of the same judgment and order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the Special Civil Application No.7375 of 2016, filed by two sets of persons, who claim to be allottees and auction purchasers of the land in question, we have heard both the appeals together with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties and they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. A perusal of the Special Civil Application No. 7375 of 2016 indicates that the said writ petition was filed by three persons claiming to be the permanent lessees of the land in question namely Survey No.304/1 admeasuring 502 acres and 15 gunthas. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioners have been granted quarry lease for crushing stones on the aforesaid plot namely Survey No. 304/1, total area of which is about 90,000 sq.ft equivalent to 10,000 sq.yards.
3. The lease was granted way back in the year 1966 - 1967 for a period of two years and, thereafter, permanent lease was granted in the year 1967. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been forced by the Sarpanch of Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined Timbdi Gram Panchayat that the petitioners were occupying a wrong survey number and that the petitioners were alleged to be encroachers. The submission is that the land of which the lease was granted to the petitioner is at a distance of 300 ft. from the National Highways.
4. An order dated 26.06.1968 was passed by the Collector, Rajkot and the Circle Inspector, Morbi as well as Talati - cum - Mantri of Village Pipli to grant possession of the land in question to the petitioners and the possession was given on 02.09.1968. An entry in that regard was made in the revenue records, i.e. Hissa Form No.4, which is appended as Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. The map of the land in question stated to be duly certified by the District Inspector of Land Records (DILR), Rajkot has been appended at Annexure 'B' to submit that there is a reference of the order of the Collector granting lease to the present petitioners dated 26.06.1968.
5. It is, then, contended that there is no encroachment nor there is any adverse remark against the petitioners and the map prepared in the year 1992 - 1993 gives the location of the land, which was given to the petitioner. It is, however, stated in the Paragraph '6' of the writ petition that the copy of the said map, though at present is not necessary, will be referred in case of need.
6. There is a reference of a joint measurement sheet dated 23.04.2015 of two lands bearing bearing revenue survey No. 94/2 as well as revenue survey No. 304/1. It is Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined contended that in the said map, survey No. 94/2, which is an extended limit of Timbdi Gram Panchayat, admeasuring 4 Acre - 13 gunthas and the extension of the Gamtal was sanctioned by the Deputy Collector vide Order no.1085 dated 16.08.1986.
7. The contention is that the petitioners have obtained the print out of the map of the lands in question, wherein the measurement and the area located on the site of two plots namely survey No. 94/2 and 304/1/p has been distinctly shown and in the Government record also, plot No. 304/1/p has been shown as being used for stone crusher.
8. As a result of extension of Gamtal in revenue survey No. 94/2 admeasuring 4 acres - 13 gunthas, the Timbdi Gram Panchayat had prepared a layout plan and it was sent to the Taluka Development Officer for approval but without inspecting the site way back on 22.02.1991, the layout plan was approved on 21.03.1999. Revised layout plan was prepared and again sent to Taluka Development Officer, Morbi for approval and on 18.08.1999, approval was given.
9. It is, then, contended that on account of the mistake on the part of the respondent No.3 namely Timbdi Gram Panchayat, the revised plan was wrongly prepared as a result of which, the land forming part of revenue survey No. 304 p, which is lying within the jurisdiction of Village Panchayat, Pipli, without verification on the site, has been shown in the map as a land belonging to Village Panchayat Timbdi, forming part of revenue survey No. 94/2 admeasuring Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined 4 Acres - 13 Gunthas.
10. The result is that the land of the present petitioners has been wrongly shown in the map and by encroachment upon the petitioner's land on paper, plotting has been done. It is contended in the writ petition that without application of mind and without verification of the land on the site, the land of the petitioner, which is at a distance of 300 ft. from the National Highway and has been leased out by the Panchayat Pipli, had been shown as the land of Timbdi Gram Panchayat, which is actually at the distance of 160 ft. from the middle line of the National Highway and illegal plotting was done.
11. It is submitted that rules and regulations are breached and revised plan was wrongly prepared. The land, which was leased to the petitioner belong to the Pipli Gram Panchayat and the petitioner is in possession of the entire area leased out to them to the extent of 90,000 sq. ft. (300 ft. * 300 ft.) equivalent to 10,000 sq.yards.
12. With these assertions, it was submitted by the petitioners before the writ Court that the plotting was done illegally and the petitioners apprehended that they would be dispossessed and their business would be affected. It was further stated that new Gamtal of Timbdi in the Kharaba land of survey No. 94/p is located on the other side of the land in question and the location of the petitioners' land is within the limits of Pipli Gram Panchayat.
Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined
13. With these averments, there is a reference of the Special Civil Application No.142 of 2001 filed by one Jagdish Patel, challenging the auction proceeding and further of a Civil Suit No.61 of 2014, filed by one Jarya Bhavdeep Kumar. There is a reference of the Commissioner's report filed in the civil suit after site inspection wherein it is indicated that the plotting has been done in the extended limit of Village Timbdi survey No.94/2. It is contended that the said report had been submitted due to oversight and plotting has actually been done on the land belonging to the petitioners. It is further contended in the writ petition that it has come to the knowledge of the petitioners that 16 plots, which were carved out in the layout plan were disposed of without proper advertisement and without giving opportunity to the public at large. The Special Civil Application No. 142 of 2001 was, therefore, filed to challenge the auction.
14. The petitioners have further made a reference to the communication sent by them to the competent authority and the replies received by them. Having noticed the averments in the writ petition, it is pertinent to note the prayers made in the writ petition as follows:-
"(a) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus holding that the government karaba land bearing Revenue Survey No.304 admeasuring Acres 502 and 15 gunthas out of which 90000 sq.ft. i.e. to say 10000 sq.yds. of land is leased to the petitioners on permanent basis and that land bearing Survey No.304/1 is located in the boundaries of the village panchayat Pipli and be further pleased to hold and declare that land Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined bearing Survey No.94/2 is located on the other side of the National Highway and beyond the boundaries of the Piple village panchayat and that therefore, the plotting and disposal of the plot, which is undertaken by respondent No.3, is absolutely illegal and the layout plan which is made whereby the land of the petitioners is encroached be also declared as illegal and void and the same be quashed and set-
aside.
(b) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to protect the possession of the petitioners of the leased portion of the land bearing Revenue Survey No.304/1 located in the village panchayat Pipli admeasuring 300 ft x 300 ft. 90000 sq.ft. = 10,000 sq.yds.
(c) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondent No.3 and all the plot holders who are claiming any right through respondent No.3 be also restrained from putting up any construction and respondent No.3 be directed that the way which has been blocked temporarily, be made clear and all the debris, wheels, tyres which are shown in the photographs (Annexure-T) be directed to be removed and further injunction be granted in favour of the petitioner and against respondent No.3 and the persons claiming through respondent No.3 not to cause any obstruction."
15. A perusal of the prayers made in the writ petition indicated that the petitioner has sought a relief in the nature of declaration by way of mandamus holding that the Government Kharaba land bearing revenue survey no.304 admeasuring total 502 acres and 15 gunthas out of which, 90,000 sq. ft. was leased out to the petitioners, is located within the boundaries of Village Panchayat Pipli. A further declaration has been sought to the effect that the land bearing survey No. 94 / 2 is located at the other side of the National Highway and is beyond the boundaries of Pipli Village Panchayat and therefore, the plotting and disposal of the plot, Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined which has been undertaken by respondent No.3 namely Sarpanch, Timbdi Gram Panchayat was absolutely illegal and the layout plan whereby the land of the petitioners was encroached, is required to be declared as illegal and void and be quashed.
16. Further prayer made is to protect the possession of the petitioners over the leased portion of the land bearing revenue survey No. 304/1 located in Village Panchayat Pipli admeasuring 90,000 sq.ft. Further prayer has been sought in the writ petition to restrain the respondent No.3 from putting up any construction during the pendency of the writ petition or to block the way, which had been blocked temporarily.
17. We may further note that in the array of parties, the petitioners had impleaded the State of Gujarat through the District Collector, Morbi and the Sarpanches of both Village Panchayat Pipli and Village Panchayat Timbdi have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein.
18. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents / original petitioners that by way of amendment, all administrative officers namely Taluka Development Officer, District Development Officer, Deputy Collector, Talati - cum - Mantri and also Mamlatdar were impleaded and instructions have been sought by the writ Court from the said administrative officers about the approval of the layout plan and the plotting done, so as to ascertain the location of survey No. 94/2 belonging to Timbdi Gram Panchayat and survey No. Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined 304/1 of Pipli Gram Panchayat leased to the petitioners. However, the fact remains that none of the two Gram panchayats namely the Timbdi Gram Panchayat and Pipli Gram Panchayat, who were the necessary and proper party in the writ petition have been impleaded.
19. The submission of the learned counsel for the original petitioners / respondents herein that Sarpanches of the two Gram panchayats impleaded as respondent Nos. 2 and 3, were representing the Gram panchayats, is wholly unacceptable. In any case, both the gram panchayats namely Pipli Gram Panchayat and Timbdi Gram Panchayat were necessary and proper parties in the writ petition, when the learned Single Judge had posed a question to itself while disposing of the writ petition that the question arose before the writ Court as to whether the disputed land belonged to Gram Panchayat Pipli or Gram Panchayat Timbdi. The said question posed in Paragraph '23' of the impugned judgment and order dated 09.06.2022 could not have been examined and answered without impleading the Gram Panchayat themselves. It is, further, pertinent to extract the Paragraphs '23, '24', '25' and '26' of the said judgment as under:-
"23. Now, the question arise as to whether the disputed land belongs to Gram Panchayat-Pipli or Gram Panchayat-Timbdi. It is pertinent to note that it is categorical admission on the part of TDO, Morbi Taluka that there was mistake in sanctioning of New Gamtal for Village-Timbdi and actual land bearing Revenue Survey No.304/1 paiki of Village-Pipli was determined as New Gamtal. In other words, it appears that instead of land of Village-Timbdi, land of Village-Pipli was earmarked as new Gamtal. As admitted by TDO, Morbi, Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined resultantly 76 plots, which seems to be allotted is land bearing Survey No.304/1 of Village-Pipli. It appears that, at the relevant point of time, while sanctioning New Gamtal for Village-Timbdi, instead of doing actual measurement of the land and actual visit of the place by the concerned officer of the department, they have mechanically prepared the map by super-imposing the survey numbers at their leisure in their office and thereby created this sort of dispute, which is affecting not only the parties to the petition but also to both the Villages. Whether the error is inadvertent or not, it is for the administration to correct and rectify the mistake which is affecting the rights of the litigating parties and bring solution to the dispute by taking appropriate steps.
24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it clearly transpires that while cancelling auction, learned DDO has not provided any opportunity of hearing to successful bidders and has passed the order violating the principles of natural justice. Such order is liable to be set aside only on this ground. When the DDO has passed order in breach of principles of natural justice, the question as to who has set aside it pales into insignificance. Otherwise also, considering the material placed on record and the fact that auction of the plots is duly supported by documentary evidence and it has not been challenged before higher authority of the Government, auction cannot be treated as illegal.
25. Considering these facts, when there is an administrative mistake committed by the authority, it would be proper to direct the authorities concerned to sort out the dispute between the parties by amicable settlement and to see to it that the villagers of Timbdi Village, who have been allotted plots are not compelled to pay more amount than what was payable by them at the relevant time and to provide them suitable alternative plots in the vicinity of Village-Timbdi.
26. In view above discussion, following order would meet the ends of justice:-
Special Civil Application No.142 of 2001 is dismissed. The impugned order order passed by the respondent no.1 Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined dated 13-16/10/2000 is confirmed.
So far as Special Civil Application No.7375 of 2016 is concerned, in view of admission on the part of TDO that there was inadvertent mistake in sanctioning new Gamtal for VillageTimbdi, revenue authorities are hereby directed to see to it that 76 plots which were allotted, treating them as land of Village-Timbdi, which is actually the land of Survey No.304/1 of Village-Pipli, the plot holders thereof be provided alternative suitable plots of equal measurement in the vicinity of VillageTimbdi, on the same price, which was payable by them on the date of issuance of Sanad. Such exercise be completed by the concerned authority within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.
It is also observed that the land leased to the petitioner is of Survey No.304/1 located in Village-Pipli and possession of the said land is with the petitioner, which may not be disturbed, without following due process of law. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. "
20. A perusal of Paragraph 23 onwards of the judgment and order dated 09.06.2022 indicates that the learned Single Judge has proceeded on the stand taken by the Taluka Development Officer, Morbi in the affidavits filed on its behalf and has proceeded to record that an administrative mistake has been committed by the concerned authority and in view of admission on the part of the Taluka Development Officer, it was clear that there was an inadvertant mistake in sanctioning new Gamtal for Village Timbdi. Revenue authorities were further directed to see to it that 76 plots, which were allotted treating them as lands of village Timbdi, were actually the land of revenue survey No. 304/1 of village Pipli and the plot holders shall be provided alternative suitable plots of equal measurement in the vicinity of village Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined Timbdi on the same price, which was payable by them on the date of issuance of Sanad. The concerned authority had been directed to complete the exercise within the period of four months from the date of receipt of the order.
21. However, the fact remains that none of the allottees of the land in question namely 76 plots, which were carved out allegedly from the land belonging to the petitioners namely Revenue Survey No. 304/1 of Village Pipli have been impleaded by the petitioners in the writ petition.
22. The dispute raised by the writ petitioners before the writ Court essentially was about the location of two plots namely Revenue Survey No. 94/2 of Village Timbdi belonging to Village Panchayat Timbdi and survey No. 304/1 of Village Pipli belonging to Village Panchayat Pipli. In other words, the dispute raised by the petitioner before the writ Court was about the actual location of the aforesaid plots, with the assertion that plot No. 94/2 of Village Timbdi lies on the other side of the National Highway and there was a mistake in the sanction of the layout plan submitted by the Timbdi Gram Panchayat on 22.02.1991, which was approved by the Taluka Development Officer on 21.03.1999, revised layout plan of which was also approved on 18.08.1999.
23. As noted hereinabove, the dispute raised by the petitioners was essentially about the location of the lands shown in the layout plan prepared by Timbdi Gram Panchayat of the revenue survey No. 94/2 admeasuring 4 Acres - 13 Gunthas belonging to Timbdi Gram Panchayat, for plotting Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined and auction thereof to different persons. It is the case of the petitioner that while preparing revised plan, the land belonging to the petitioner of Revenue Survey No. 304 / P, which was forming part of Village Panchayat Pipli, was included in the layout plan without verification on the site and without application of mind.
24. There is, thus, a dispute with regard to location of two plots namely revenue survey no. 94/2 of Village Panchayat Timbdi and revenue survey No. 304p belonging to Village Panchayat Pipli, 90,000 sq.ft. Of which was leased out to the petitioner as per the case of the petitioner.
25. In this scenario, it is more than evident that both the village panchayats namely Village Panchayat Pipli and Village Panchayat Timbdi were to be impleaded as party respondents before the Writ court and the fact they were not represented was completely ignored by the learned Single Judge while deciding the question as to the location of the disputed land and whether it belongs to the Village Panchayat Pipli and Village Panchayat Timbdi.
26. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Taluka Development Officer being the administrative head of both the Gram Panchayats, his report was rightly considered by the learned Single judge to record the finding in favour of the petitioners, is found to be wholly misconceived.
27. Moreover, the disputes raised in the writ petition by the petitioners are factual in nature and required Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined adjudication on appreciation of evidence about the location of the land in question and the rights of the allottees and auction purchasers of the plots carved out of survey no. 94/2 belonging to Village Timbdi Gram Panchayat.
28. It was not permitted for the learned Single Judge to hold that the land leased out to the petitioners is located in the Village Pipli being revenue survey No. 304/1 and the possession of the land is with the petitioners, which is sought to be disturbed with the allotment of 76 plots to different persons treating those plots as land belonging to Village Panchayat Timbdi, by making a factual inquiry within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
29. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was not possible nor permissible for the learned Single Judge to allow the writ petition, which was filed without impleading the necessary and proper parties to the writ petition namely Village Panchayat Pipli and Village Panchayat Timbdi. No declaration of the land in survey No. 340/1 located at Village Pipli belonging to the petitioner could have been given in the absence of Village Panchayat Pipli.
30. The question as to whether the land in question was leased out to the petitioners and it was a permanent lease or not and whether the auction of the 76 plots has resulted in purported dispossession of the petitioner from the leased land of survey No. 304/1 located in village Pipli were all disputed questions of facts, which could not have been adjudicated by the writ Court within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appropriate course of action for the Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined writ Court was to relegate the petitioner to file a civil suit or to approach the revenue authorities in case of any dispute pertaining to measurement or location of the land in question.
31. In view of the above, the judgment and order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition namely Special Civil Application No.7375 of 2016 is liable to be set aside.
32. With the above, while setting aside the judgment and order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, both the Letters Patent Appeals stand allowed. Consequently, the writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 7375 of 2016 is dismissed. In view of the disposal of the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals, the connected civil applications for stay stand disposed of.
33. The parties are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court or the revenue authorities for agitating the dispute raised before us. It is clarified that in case the petitioners herein approach the competent revenue authority or a civil court agitating the grievances raised in the writ petition about the location of the land allegedly leased out to them or the appellants, who claim to be allottees / auction purchasers approach the revenue authorities or the civil court, the dismissal of the writ petition or any of the observations made hereinabove will not come in the way of any of the parties.
34. The revenue authorities or the Civil court would be required to take an independent decision without being Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2448/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.
35. After the judgment was dictated in the open Court, Mr. Siraj R. Ghori, learned advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 / original petitioners would make a request to stay the operation of this order for a period of eight weeks, which is hereby rejected for the reasoning given hereinabove.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) SAHIL S. RANGER Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:01:50 IST 2025