Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs R.N. Traders Thru. Prop. Rukshanaben ... on 12 December, 2018
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
C/SCA/15058/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15058 of 2018
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
R.N. TRADERS THRU. PROP. RUKSHANABEN LALANBHAI SHAIKH
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RAKESH PATEL, AGP for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR CB UPADHYAY, ADVOCATE for MR ANVESH V VYAS(5654) for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 12/12/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petition filed under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India, the following prayers have been made :
"[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue the writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to quash and set aside the order passed by the Ld. Additional Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) in MVV/GNT/MSN/01/2017 dated 08.01.2018.
[B] During pendency, hearing and final disposal of the petitioner, Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order passed by the Additional Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) in MVV/GNT/MSN/01/2017 dated 08.01.2018.
[C] Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further relief which may deem fit in the interest of justice."
2. Mr.C.B.Upadhayaya, learned advocate assisted by Mr. Anvesh Vyas, learned advocate appears on caveat for the private respondent and has assisted the Court in the matter.
Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/15058/2018 ORDER3. The short facts arise from the record are as under:
3.1 That the land in dispute was purchased by one Public Trust namely Gramin Mahila Trust in the year 1982 and accordingly, entry was mutated in the revenue record and subsequent thereto, the land in dispute changed the hands on three occasions and the respondent No.1 is the last purchaser of the land in dispute and purchased the land in dispute by executing a registered sale deed in the year 2008. Pursuant to the said registered sale deed, an entry was mutated in the revenue record in the year 2008 itself. Since the land was an agricultural land, the respondent no. 1 requested the District Collector, Mehsana to convert the land into non-agricultural land and had shown readiness and willingness to pay the appropriate charges as per the provisions of law. The District Collector, Mehsana rejected the application submitted by the respondent no. 1 on the ground that the first transaction of 1982, by which, the property was purchased by the Trust is illegal since the Trust was not an agriculturist and therefore, the respondent no. 1 would not be entitled for N.A. permission. The order passed by the Collector rejecting the application of the respondent no. 1 for N.A. permission was challenged by the respondent no. 1 before the appellate authority, which remanded the case for fresh consideration.
The District Collector, Mehsana passed similar order, and therefore, the respondent no. 1 filed another revision appeal, which came to be allowed in favour of the respondent no. 1 vide impugned order dated 08.01.2018. The District Collector was not complying with the order passed by the Revisional Authority, by which, direction was issued to grant the N.A. permission under Section 63AA of the Tenancy Act treating the respondent no. 1 herein as a bondafide purchaser. The respondent no. 1 therefore, filed a writ petition being Special Page 2 of 5 C/SCA/15058/2018 ORDER Civil Application No. 11761 of 2018. On 16.08.2018, this Hon'ble Court allowed the said petition and directed the authorities below to implement the order passed by the Revisional Authority. On receiving the above order, the present petition has been filed by the State of Gujarat on 14.09.2018.
3.2 Hence, this petition.
4. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner - State, would submit that the Revisional Authority has committed grave error in allowing the Revision Application filed by the respondent no.1 since the original transaction of 1982 itself is contrary to the provisions of law. He would further submit that the Trust is not an agriculturist and cannot purchase the agricultural land and therefore, subsequent transactions cannot be treated as legal transactions. He therefore, would submit that the authority below has rightly rejected the application of the respondent no. 1 for N.A. Permission.
5. On the other hand, Mr.C.B.Upadhyay, learned advocate assisted by Mr.Anvesh Vyas, learned advocate appearing for respondent no.1 herein, would submit that the application was submitted by the respondent no. 1 herein for converting the land into non-agricultural land, however, the reasons assigned by the District Collector is with regard to the entry, which was mutated in the year 1982. He would submit that there are no proceedings initiated for cancellation of entry of the year 1982 and subsequent thereto, the land in dispute have changed the hands. He would further submit that even the entry mutated in the name of the respondent no. 1 herein way back in the year 2008 neither has been challenged nor has been taken in Page 3 of 5 C/SCA/15058/2018 ORDER suo motu revision nor suit has been filed with regard to illegality and validity of the registered sale deed, by which, the respondent no. 1 has purchased the property relying upon the revenue record maintained by the concerned authority itself. He would further submit that the revisional authority has rightly observed in the impugned order that the respondent no. 1 herein is a bonafide purchaser. He would further submit that the petitioner herein - District Collector, Mehsana should have complied with the order/s passed by the higher officer and by this Court also. However, the petition has been filed in the Month of September, 2018 challenging the order the Revisional Authority and also after receiving the direction issued by this Court in writ petition dated 16.08.2018 issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court directing the authority below to comply with the order passed by the Revisional Authority. He, therefore, would submit that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned Assistant Government Pleader as well as learned Advocate appearing for the private respondent. Perused the several orders passed in the proceedings as well as the impugned order and the direction issued by this Court on 16.08.2018 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
7. It is true that the land in dispute is an agricultural land.
However, the land in dispute was purchased by the Trust way back in the year 1982 and accordingly, an entry was mutated in the same year. Subsequent thereto, the land in dispute has changed the hands on three occasions that means on three occasions, the land in dispute was sold by a registered sale deed and the entries were mutated accordingly. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 purchased the land in dispute in the year Page 4 of 5 C/SCA/15058/2018 ORDER 2008 by a registered sale deed and entry was also mutated accordingly. It is presumed that there is no any other entries except the earlier entries, which suggest that the land in dispute is the agricultural land and no objection has been raised either by the private respondent while purchasing the land or by the state authority that the land in dispute is restricted land, which was barred by law and therefore, the authority has rightly considered that the respondent no. 1 is the bonafide purchaser. It is also pertinent to note that the entry is of the year 1982 and subsequent thereto, the entries were mutated in the name of various purchasers and lastly, in the name of the present respondent no.1, who has purchased the land, have not been challenged or have not been taken into suo motu revision till date by the authority concerned. Apart from these aspects, there is delay and laches on the part of the authorities concerned. Therefore, the Revisional Authority has rightly issued direction to the District Collector, Mehsana to grant N.A. permission. Hence, I do no find merits in the present petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
8. The authority below shall implement the order dated 08.01.2018 passed by the Revisional Authority as well as the direction issued by this Court vide order on 16.08.2018 in Special Civil Application No.11761 of 2018 forthwith.
Direct service is permitted.
(A.J.DESAI, J) *F.S.KAZI.....
Page 5 of 5