Shailendrabhai Dahyabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & on 15 April, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 3]

Gujarat High Court

Shailendrabhai Dahyabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & on 15 April, 2013

Learned advocates waive service of rule on behalf the respective respondents. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present petition, which lies in a very narrow compass, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st March, 2012 passed by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the revisional authority ) in Revision Application No.12/2007, whereby the revision application filed by the respondent No.2 herein has been allowed and the order dated 17.10.2005 passed by the Collector, Anand in RTS/RA/No.2/2002 has been set aside.

Mr. H. M. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the impugned order passed by the revisional authority, to submit that despite the fact that the petitioner had purchased the subject land way back in the year 2000, the petitioner has not been joined as a party in the said proceedings though being directly affected by the outcome thereof. It was submitted that the impugned order, therefore, suffers from the vice of being in breach of the principles of natural justice. Attention was also invited to the order dated 17.10.2005 passed by the Collector, Anand and more particularly, to the contents of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 6 thereof, to submit that the power of attorney on the basis of which the subject lands were transferred in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, was an irrevocable power of attorney. Moreover, before the Collector, the original land owners had accepted the transaction in favour of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the revisional authority was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the Collector.

Vehemently opposing the petition, Mr. P. A. Jadeja, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner has no locus to file the present petition, inasmuch as, he was not a party in the proceedings before the revisional authority. It was submitted that if at all any order is passed against the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner by the revisional authority, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, his remedy lies against his predecessor-in-title and not by way of the present petition. Under the circumstances, the present petition, at the instance of the petitioner, does not deserve to be entertained.

Referring to the impugned order, Mr. Jadeja submitted that the revisional authority has given sufficient, cogent and convincing reasons while allowing the revision application, inasmuch as, the power of attorney on the basis of which the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner had purchased the subject property, had been revoked prior to the sale deed being executed in his favour. It was urged that the revisional authority has, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly concluded that the sale in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner was not valid and had, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Collector, Anand and as such, there is no warrant for any interference by this court.

Having regard to the view that the court is inclined to take in the matter, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail.

From the contentions noted hereinabove, it is apparent that one of the grounds on which the impugned order passed by the revisional authority has been assailed is that the same is in breach of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the petitioner has not been impleaded as a party respondent despite the fact that he is directly affected by the impugned order. On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the respondent No.2 that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition. In the opinion of this court, the said contention is misconceived, inasmuch as, as the petitioner has purchased the subject lands from his predecessor-in-title, he steps into his shoes and is directly affected by any order that may be passed against his predecessor-in-title. The contention that the petitioner has no locus standi, therefore, does not merit acceptance.

However, on the sole ground that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who is a directly affected party, without entering into the merits of the case, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside with a view to restore the matter before the revisional authority for deciding the matter afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of hearing.

In the aforesaid premises, the petition is allowed to the following extent. The impugned order dated 1st March, 2012 passed by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.12/2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the revisional authority. The learned advocate for the respondent No.2 original applicant before the revisional authority states that he would join the petitioner herein as a respondent in the said proceedings. Upon the petitioner being joined as a respondent in the revisional proceedings, the revisional authority shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and after giving the respective parties a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Having regard to the fact that the revisional authority would be deciding the matter in remand, it is expected that the revisional authority shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.

Rule is made absolutely accordingly, to the aforesaid extent, with no order as to costs.

Direct Service is permitted.

(HARSHA DEVANI, J.) parmar* Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court