Seemaben Ajaykumar Ranka vs State Of Gujarat on 9 March, 2018

[Cites 6, Cited by 15]

Gujarat High Court

Seemaben Ajaykumar Ranka vs State Of Gujarat on 9 March, 2018

Bench: N.V.Anjaria

        C/SCA/12783/2016                                   ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12783 of 2016
==========================================================
                      SEEMABEN AJAYKUMAR RANKA
                                Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MRUGESH BAROT FOR MR VIMAL A PUROHIT for PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2
MR MANAN MEHTA, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N)(11) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK(3) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

                           Date : 09/03/2018
                            ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Mr.Mrugesh Barot for learned advocate Mr.Vimal Purohit for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondentState and its authorities.

2. What the petitioners have prayed is to set aside Show Cause Notice dated 20.05.2016, issued by the Mamlatdar and ALT, respondent No.3 herein, in Ganot Case No.32 of 2016. It is further prayed to restrain the District Collector, Vadodara, from taking any action pursuant to the impugned notice.

3. The petitioners want the notice dated 20.05.2016 to be declared as bad in law. The said notice is Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/12783/2016 ORDER issued under the provisions of Section 84(C) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

4. Recording of detailed facts may not be necessary in view of the undisputed position that issuance of the impugned Show Cause Notice is a suo motu power exercised after 33 and 23 years from the date of the transaction in question.

5. The Division Bench of this Court in Bharatbhai Naranbhai Vegda and others Vs. State of Gujarat and others [2016 (2) GLR 1021] was dealing with the question of Show Cause Notice issued for cancellation of mutation entry on the ground of breach of Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance, 1949.

5.1 The Division Bench observed and held thus :

"Taking in view, the abovereferred well considered two decisions of this Court makes the position abundantly clear that if the action is to be initiated for setting aside of a transaction under the Ordinance by invoking Sec.54 read with Sec.75 of the Ordinance, it has to be within reasonable period. The above referred two decisions are in respect of the Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/12783/2016 ORDER cases wherein the powers were exercised and proceedings were initiated after 5 years and 17 years respectively, whereas in the present case, it is after more than 35 years. Hence, the initiation of the action itself can be said as beyond reasonable period and the bar of delay and laches could operate against the authority in initiation of the action and when the ownership is changed during the period of delay, the bar for not taking action within reasonable period would also operate with more gravity against the authority in initiation of the action. (Para 10)"

5.2 It was held that when the bar of delay operated, the exercise of power was without jurisdiction, "The bar of delay operate against the exercise of the jurisdiction of that the initiation of the action is beyond reasonable period as per the wellsettled principles of law, the action can be said as without jurisdiction. If an action is without jurisdiction, as observed by the Apex Court in the abovereferred decision in the case of State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd., 2007 (11) SCC 363, the petition under Art.226 of the Constitution can be maintained and the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution can be invoked. (Para 12)" Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/12783/2016 ORDER

6. The aforesaid law applies to the facts of the case. The proceedings initiated by issuance of Show Cause Notice after long 20 years in the present case would not be sustained. The action and the initiation of proceedings are rendered without jurisdiction. For this very reason, the contention of availability of alternative remedy attempted to be raised by the other side is hereby overruled. When an action is patently illegal lacking in jurisdiction, and when it stands contrary to the decision of this Court in Bharatbhai Naranbhai Vegda (supra), this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained.

7. As a result of above discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned notice dated 20.05.2016, issued by respondent No.3 - Mamlatdar and ALT in Ganot Case No.32 of 2016 is hereby set aside.

The petition stands allowed.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) Gaurav+ Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court