Gujarat High Court
Vasudevbhai Nathubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 11 December, 2018
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
C/SCA/4472/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4472 of 2017
================================================================
VASUDEVBHAI NATHUBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MS. KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2
MR RAKESH PATEL, AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MR VIKRAM J THAKOR(2221) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 5
MR. VINOD PANDYA(6977) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 5
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,3,4,6,7,8,9
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 11/12/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Vikram Thakor, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.5.
2. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. By way of the present petition filed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the following prayers have been made :
"[A] Admit and allow this petition.
[B] Issue appropriate writ, order or directions for quashing
and setting aside the order dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Secretary Revenue Department (Appeal), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/4472/2017 ORDER MVV/BKhP/ST/8/2010 linked with MVV/Suo-
Motu/BKhP/ST/2/2010.
"[C] Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, stay the implementation and operation of order dated 29.08.2016 passed by Secretary Revenue Department (Appeal), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. MVV/BKhP/ST/8/2010 linked with MVV/Suo-Motu/BKhP/ST/2/2010.
[D] Grant such other and further reliefs, as thought fit in the interest of justice."
4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, respondent No.5 has filed affidavit-in-reply.
5. Short facts arise from the record are as under:
5.1. That by an order dated 13.08.1999, the Taluka Development Officer, Surat permitted one Balubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel -
original owner of the land in dispute i.e. Survey No.294/4, Block No. 319 of village Mulad, Taluka Olpad, District Surat to convert the land into Non-agricultural land on certain terms and conditions. Having received such permission, the land in dispute was sold to present petitioners in the year 2000. Respondent No. 5 herein submitted revision application before the respondent no. 1 challenging the Non-agricultural permission, which was granted in the 1999, by contending that the same was contrary to the provisions of law. The said revision application was numbers as No/MVV/BKhP/ST/8/2010, in which, the present petitioners are not joined as party.
5.2. Simultaneously, the State Authority has also taken suo motu proceedings since on 28.06.1999, the application for NA permission was made by one Balubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and on 13.08.1999, the permission was granted and at that Page 2 of 5 C/SCA/4472/2017 ORDER time, Balubhai was dead and the permission was sought by putting false signature.
5.3. Both the proceedings were heard together by the respondent no. 1 and allowed the application as well as suo motu on 29.08.2016 and quashed and set aside the order dated 13.08.1999 passed by TDO, Olpad on the ground that false signature was made and more land is sold out and the construction is not made within a period of three months and the common plot is also sold out.
5.4. Having come to know about the above referred order passed by the respondent no. 1, the petitioners filed present petition on the ground that the petitioners had purchased the land in dispute by a registered sale deed on 03.02.2000 as well as on the ground that they have not been made parties before deciding above referred application as well suo-motu.
5.5 Hence, this petition.
6. Ms. Kruti M. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the respondent no. 5, who has raised objections, has nothing to do with the land in dispute. She would further submit that the respondent no. 5 has no right, title or interest over the property and only on the frivolous ground, such application has been filed i.e. after a period of 10 years from grant of N.A. permission by the competent authority. She would further submit that subsequent to sale of the property by registered sale deed, the name of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue record, however, the authority had not joined them as party.
Page 3 of 5 C/SCA/4472/2017 ORDERShe would further submit that the legal heirs of Balubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel - the original land owner sold the land in dispute to the petitioners in the year 2000, after examining the revenue record as well as considering the N.A. permission granted by the competent authority in the year 1999. She would submit that the order impugned has been passed contrary to the principles of natural justice as well as the order has been passed without being joined them as parties - respondents. She, therefore, would submit that the present petition may be allowed.
6. Ms. Sachi Mathur, learned advocate for Mr. Vikram Thakor, learned advocate appearing for respondent no.5, would submit that the respondent no. 5 was not aware that the land in dispute was purchased by the petitioners and therefore, they were not joined as parties - respondents. She, therefore, would submit that the present petition may be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. It is an undisputed fact that the property was purchased by the petitioners in the years 2000, after examining the revenue record as well as considering the N.A. permission granted by the competent authority in the year 1999. It also appears that the name of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue record, however, they were not made parties respondents in the proceedings. Therefore, there is breach of principles of natural justice. Hence, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. MVV/BKhP/ST/8/2010 linked with MVV/Suo-Motu/BKhP/ST/2/2010 is hereby quashed Page 4 of 5 C/SCA/4472/2017 ORDER and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Revisional Authority i.e. Revenue Department (Appeals). The Revision Application No. MVV/BKhP/ST/8/2010 linked with MVV/Suo- Motu/BKhP/ST/2/2010 is hereby revived. The petitioners be joined as parties - respondents in the said proceedings. The authority shall give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and shall pass appropriate order, after examining the documentary evidence, which may be produced by the petitioners.
8. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(A.J.DESAI, J) *F.S.KAZI.....
Page 5 of 5