Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kalubhai Vithal Patel & on 28 January, 2013
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
STATE OF GUJARAT....Petitioner(s)V/SKALUBHAI VITHAL PATEL C/SCA/8911/1994 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8911 of 1994 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ============================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ============================================================== STATE OF GUJARAT....Petitioner(s) Versus KALUBHAI VITHAL PATEL & 2....Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance: MR RAKESH PATEL, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR JA ADESHRA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS SUBHADRA G PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ============================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 28/01/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
The present petition has been preferred by the State of Gujarat for challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 12.11.1991, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the revision and has set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT and declared that the original status of the land is restored as per the order dated 20.10.1986 of the Tribunal.
The short facts of the case appears to be that the land bearing Survey No.100/1 and 100/2 were sold by Kalubhai Vitthalbhai vide sale deed dated 05.02.1981 against sale consideration of Rs.15000/- to one Bhagubhai Chotabhai Patel and Bhartiben Dipakbhai. The proceedings under section 84C of Bombay Tenancy & Agriculture Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) were initiated and it went upto the Tribunal. Before the Revenue Tribunal, a declaration was made that the purchaser and the seller are ready to restore the original status of the land and therefore, the Tribunal relegated the matter to the Mamlatdar, but it was observed that the purshis for restoration of the original status of the land should be reported accordingly within a period of 15 days from the date on which the Tribunal passed the order. It appears that thereafter, on 28.10.1986, the original status of the land was restored inasmuch as the possession of the land was handed over to the vendor by the purchaser and consideration was returned by the vendor to the purchaser. The declaration to that effect as per the respondent was submitted well in time but the Mamlatdar found that the date was backdated and it was found to be after 15 days from the date of the Tribunal s order. Therefore, the Mamlatdar did not accept the representation and passed the order on 20.01.1988 declaring that the land has vested to the Government. The matter was carried in appeal before the Deputy Collector being Appeal No.127/88 and the said appeal vide order dated 21.07.1990, was dismissed. The matter was further carried before the Tribunal and the Revenue Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order found that the actual restoration was already made on 28.10.1986 and therefore, when the status of the land was restored as per the declaration made before the Tribunal, within a period of 15 days, whether purshis was filed at a later stage or not would be irrelevant and ultimately, allowed the revision application. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court.
I have heard Mr.Rakesh Patel, learned AGP for the petitioner and Mr.Adesara, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1.
The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that since the Mamlatdar found that the purshis was not submitted well in time and there was backdating of the purshis for reporting to the Mamlatdar, it could be said that the order of the Tribunal was not complied with and therefore, Mamlatdar has rightly observed that the land vested to the Government. It was submitted that the Tribunal has not properly considered the said aspects and therefore, this Court may interfere.
It appears that when the original status of the land was already restored as back as on 28.10.1986, as against the outer limit provided of 05.11.1986, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the declaration or the reporting to the Mamlatdar even if considered, at the later date, would be irrelevant aspect. Had it been a case where the actual status of the land was not restored prior to the outer limit of 05.11.1986, the matter might stand on different footing but in the present case, it is an admitted position that the writing for restoration of the status of the land was executed on 28.10.1986, i.e., prior to 05.11.1986 which was the outer limit of 15 days as provided by the Tribunal.
Mr. Patel, learned AGP attempted to contend that the Mamlatdar in the order dated 20.01.1988, has found that the purshis submitted was not signed by Bhartiben and therefore also, it could be said that the Mamlatdar & ALT was justified in recording the conclusion that the order of the Revenue Tribunal was not properly complied with.
The said contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in the very order of the Mamlatdar, he has recorded that Bhartiben Dipakbhai Mevada has declared before him in the written statement that as per the order of the Revenue Tribunal, the possession of the land has been handed over to Kalubhai Patel and the consideration is also returned by him and she is not having interest in the land and she is a consenting party with Bhagubhai. Under the circumstances, the finding recorded by the Mamlatdar that Bhartiben had not signed the purshis would be of no significance and therefore, the attempt made cannot be countenanced.
It appears that when the original status of the land was already restored within the outer limit of 05.11.1986, the Mamlatdar was not justified in observing that the land had vested to the Government since there was breach of the declaration made before the Revenue Tribunal. Hence, it appears that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the revision by setting aside the order of the Mamlatdar and its confirmation thereof by the Deputy Collector.
Under the circumstances, the petition is meritless, hence, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) bjoy Page 5 of 5