Gujarat High Court
Koli Mavjibhai Mohanbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 17 September, 2021
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: R.M.Chhaya, Nirzar S. Desai
C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1308 of 2018
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15581 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
KOLI MAVJIBHAI MOHANBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
for the Appellant(s) No. 2.6
MR RAJESH O GIDIYA(5222) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5
MS JYOTI BHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 17/09/2021
Page 1 of 18
Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021
C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI) 1 By way of the present appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the present appellant has challenged the order dated 29.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting Special Civil Application No.1558 of 2017 filed by the appellant.
2 On 07.07.2021, this Court passed the following order:
"Heard Mr. Rajesh O. Gidiya, learned advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State.
Arguments are over. Mr. Gidiya, learned advocate for the petitioner wants to rely upon some judgments. Hence, the matter is kept for orders."
3 Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal are that one Dadabhai Ravatbhai was given the land bearing Survey No.570 paiki, Page 2 of 18 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021 C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021 admeasuring 9-21 Acres-Gunthas situated at village Noli, Taluka Sayla, District Surendranagar by the State Government on Santhani basis. Since the land was given on Santhani basis, the same was meant for personal cultivation only for earning the livelihood of the allottee. In the year 1991 Dadabhai Ravatbhai, without obtaining permission from the competent authority transferred the entire parcel of land by way of registered sale deed in favour of the present appellants. In respect of the aforesaid sale, the entry Nos.1582 and 1586 were mutated on 01.12.1994 and were certified by Mamlatdar, Sayla on 02.01.1995. Thereafter, the Deputy Collector, Limdi initiated suo motu proceedings and issued show cause notice dated 04.04.1995 to the original petitioners stating that the land in question was a new tenure indivisible land and the same was under The Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 (for short, "Land Ceiling Act") and was given on Santhani basis to Dadabhai Ravatbhai and hence there is breach of conditions committed by the petitioners. 3.1 On the basis of aforesaid show cause Page 3 of 18 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021 C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021 notice, the Deputy Collector, Limdi conducted the proceedings being Breach of Condition Case No.64/94- 95 and passed order dated 03.10.2005 cancelling the mutation entries, which were in favour of the present appellants, and since the sale took place without permission from the competent authority, the land in question was ordered to be vested into the Government.
3.2 The aforesaid order dated 03.10.2005 was challenged before the Collector, Surendranagar by filing Land Disputed Case Nos.52 and 53 of 2005-06 by the present appellants and the Collector, Surendranagar dismissed the said Land Disputed Case vide order dated 11.05.2006 and confirmed the order dated 03.10.2005 passed by the Deputy Collector, Limdi.
3.3 The aforesaid order dated 11.05.2006 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar was subject matter of challenge before the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeal) by way of the Revision Application No.72 of 2006. Even the Additional Page 4 of 18 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021 C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021 Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeal) vide order dated 15.05.2012 confirmed the order dated 11.05.2006 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar. 3.4 The appellants have preferred Special Civil Application No.11514 of 2012 and the said petition was not pressed by the learned advocate for the petitioners with a view to take recourse to appropriate remedy and such permission was granted by the Court vide order dated 28.08.2012. 3.5 The present appellants thereafter preferred Revision Application No.249 of 2012 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal summarily rejected the said revision application vide order dated 28.03.2013. 3.6 In between the original land owner Bhikhubhai Dadabhai Patgir and his legal representatives have filed Regular Civil Suit No.114 of 2010 praying for cancellation of sale deed in favour of the present appellants, but the same was also came to be withdrawn.
Page 5 of 18 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021 C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021 3.7 The present appellants have preferred Special Civil Application No.10712 of 2013 before this Court. The said petition was disposed off vide order dated 24.10.2013, which reads as under:
"Learned advocate for the petitioners state that the petitioners would like to prefer an application before the District Collector/competent authority with regard to the subject grievance with a rider that premium that will be determined and to be paid by the petitioners for the subject land will be on the date of decision that may be rendered by the District Collector.
However, the application that will be preferred by the petitioners may be decided in accordance with law.
With the above, the petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted."
3.8 On the basis of order dated 24.10.2013, the present appellants on 30.10.2013 preferred an application before the District Collector, Surendranagar stating that they ready and willing to Page 6 of 18 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021 C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021 pay the premium of the land in question and on that basis by determining the amount of premium the land be regularized in their name. Since the application dated 30.10.2013 of the appellants was not decided by the District Collector, Surendranagar, the appellants have preferred Special Civil Application No.17441 of 2014 and the same was disposed off by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2014 directing the Collector, Surendranagar to decide the application preferred by the appellants by 30.03.2015. Accordingly, the Collector, Surendranagar rejected the application preferred by the appellants vide order dated 30.04.2015 on the ground that the land in question is governed by the restrictions of Section 30 of the Land Ceiling Act and since the said land was sold without prior permission, there is no policy in place either by way of a circular or resolution to regularize such sale. Further, such land is required to be given only to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Section 24 of the Land Ceiling Act read with Rule 14 of the Land Ceiling Rules and considering the fact that the present appellants do not fall within the category of Page 7 of 18 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021 C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021 prioritized persons mentioned in Section 30, the request of the appellants was rejected. Against the aforesaid order also, the present appellants preferred Special Civil Application No.13556 of 2015, however, vide order dated 31.08.2015 the said petition was permitted to be withdrawn by the appellants with a view to avail appropriate remedy. 3.9 The present appellants challenged the order dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) by filing Revision Application No.41 of 2015, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 1-2.03.2017 by confirming the order dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar. 3.10 It is against that order dated 1-2.03.2017, the present appellants preferred Special Civil Application No.15581 of 2017, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.09.2017 and that order dated 29.09.2017 is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.
Page 8 of 18 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021
C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021 4 We have heard Mr. Rajesh Gidiya, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned AGP for the State respondents. 5 Mr. Gidiya, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Collector, Surendranagar by passing non-speaking order dated 30.04.2015 rejected the application preferred by the appellants whereby the appellants had shown willingness to pay premium for getting the land regularized in their name. He further submitted that before passing such order, the appellants were not given personal hearing, and therefore, the order passed by the Collector was in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that even the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeal) while passing the order dated 1/2.03.2017 impugned in Special Civil Application, overlooked the aforesaid fact and confirmed the order passed by the Collector, Surendranagar. It was further submitted by Mr. Gidiya, learned counsel for the appellants that even as on the date, the appellants are ready and willing to pay the premium of the land in question to Page 9 of 18 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021 C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021 get the land regularized in their name, and therefore, this is a fit case for this Court to exercise its discretion to issue directions to the respondents to determine the amount of premium of the land in question and to direct the authority to regularize the said land in the name of the present appellants.
6 Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned AGP appearing for the State respondents, submitted that the land in question is governed by the restrictions under Section 30 of the Land Ceiling Act and hence before transferring such land, prior permission of the competent authority is required. In the instance case, at no point of time, any such prior permission was taken by the present appellants or even by the original allottee of the land in question. She further submitted that the Collector has passed a reasoned order wherein it is categorically stated that there is no policy to regularize the sale retrospectively if the same is contrary to the provisions of Section 30 of the Land Ceiling Act. She further submitted that Section 24 of the Land Ceiling Page 10 of 18 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021 C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021 Act read with Rule 25 of the Land Ceiling Rules provides for allotment of land only to the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe category, whereas the appellants do not belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category, and therefore, in view of Section 30 of the Land Ceiling Act, which determines the prioritized persons, the present appellants being persons belong to Baxipanch category, they would not get any priority, and therefore, the application preferred by the appellants to regularize the sale deed cannot be considered. Ms. Bhatt, learned AGP, further submitted that the application dated 30.10.2013 preferred by the appellants was already considered and reasoned order was passed and hence the appellant cannot say that no reasons are assigned while passing order dated 30.04.2015 by the Collector, Surendranagar, which was confirmed in Revision Application by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeal). Learned AGP further submitted that when the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act or policy of the State Government do not provide for regularization of such sale, both the authorities viz. Collector, Surendranagar as well as Page 11 of 18 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021 C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021 Secretary (Appeals) have rightly rejected the application and revision application preferred by the present appellants and the learned Single Judge by taking into consideration provisions of Sections 29 and 30 of the Land Ceiling Act has rightly rejected the petition, and therefore, Ms. Bhatt prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7 No other or further submissions were made by learned counsels for the parties.
8 Having perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the entire record of the case, it is a matter of fact that the sale deed in favour of the present appellants took place in the year 1991, entries were mutated in the year 1994 and same were certified in the year 1995, and suo motu proceedings were initiated in the year 1995 against the present appellants. We have also noted the fact that at all stages, each and every order passed by the revenue authorities were challenged unsuccessfully by the appellants. At no point of time, the appellants could make out their case that Page 12 of 18 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021 C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021 the sale is valid in favour of the appellants or that it is not hit by Section 30 of the Land Ceiling Act. Regularization of land in question by paying premium is the matter of policy of the State Government, which is governed by various resolutions and circulars of the Government. In the instant case, all throughout during the time when the appellants litigated right from the year 1999 till the matter was kept for orders by this Court on 07.07.20921, the appellants could not show a single Government Resolution or anything related to the policy of the State Government in respect of regularization of land given on Santhani basis to someone and if that land is sold to some other person without any permission from the competent authority, on what basis or under which parameters sale of such land could be regularized. This substantiates the say of the learned AGP that there is no policy in place for regularization of sale for which prior permission of competent authority has not been obtained. The appellants also could not show from the record that their case would not fall within the provisions of Section 24 of Land Ceiling Act read with Rule 14 of Page 13 of 18 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021 C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021 the Land Ceiling Rules or Section 30 of the Land Ceiling Act. We have also gone through the bunch of judgments produced on record by learned counsel for the appellants. However, most of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Letters Patent Appeal No.911 of 2015 in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Hansrajbhai Laljibhai Pitroda, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.03.2021 while dismissing the said appeal confirmed the order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10465 of 2007 wherein the learned Single Judge considered the fact that there was a delay of exercise of suo motu powers after almost 34 years, which is neither canvassed before this Court nor this point was ever argued before the learned Single Judge. In fact, on perusal of memo of Special Civil Application, we find that such ground was never taken before the learned Single Judge and rightly so for the reason that the entries were mutated in favour of the appellants on 01.12.1994, same were certified on 02.01.1995, and suo motu proceedings were initiated by issuing a show Page 14 of 18 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021 C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021 cause notice dated on 04.04.1995. Therefore, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The other judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants are altogether on different point and hence though we have considered those judgments, we are not dealing with the same. 8.1 The learned Single Judge while rejecting the petition, after considering the provisions of Sections 29 and 30 of the Land Ceiling Act, observed in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the order dated 29.09.2017 as under:
"5. Indisputably, the land was allotted in terms of section 29 of the Act in favour of Dadbhai Ravatbhai as a landless person. Dadbhai Ravatbhai was supposed to cultivate the land and earn his livelihood out of the same. He could not have transferred the land in favour of the applicants and make a profit out of it. Such transfer is hit by section 30 of the Act, 1960. Having purchased a restricted tenure land with eyes wide open, it is now the case of the applicants that they are ready and willing to pay the premium of the land on the basis of the Page 15 of 18 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021 C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021 market value or Jantri value of the property. This aspect has been dealt with and considered by the authorities and the prayer has been declined.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, I am of the view that no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the authorities in passing the impugned orders. I see no good reason to interfere, in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the concurrent findings recorded by the three revenue authorities. If the request of the learned counsel is acceded, it will be nothing but travesty of justice and will be contrary to and in violation of the statutory provisions of the Act. Let me, for the time being, give benefit of doubt to the applicants that they are the bonafide purchasers of the property for value without notice, but the fact remains that the transaction is absolutely illegal. The land which is allotted by the Government to a landless person or an agricultural labourer with the avowed object that he may earn his livelihood out of the same, cannot be permitted to be transferred so as to make a profit out of it.Page 16 of 18 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021
C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021
7. I may only say that the reliefs granted by the courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy and generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasonings and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mode of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability. (see Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A.Unnikrishnan and another, (1994)2 LLJ SC 888).
8. In such circumstances referred to above, this application fails and is hereby rejected."
8.2 In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.15581 of 2017. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
Page 17 of 18 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021
C/LPA/1308/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021 9 The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA, J) (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) P. SUBRAHMANYAM Page 18 of 18 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 20 22:16:31 IST 2021