Gujarat High Court
Ravjibhai Amarshibhai Vasava vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 April, 2013
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
RAVJIBHAI AMARSHIBHAI VASAVA....Petitioner(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT C/SCA/8236/2004 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8236 of 2004 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? No 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No ================================================================ RAVJIBHAI AMARSHIBHAI VASAVA....Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR SHAILESH C PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR PARTH BHATT ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3 MR JAYESH A DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 04/04/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated November 30, 1996 passed by the Deputy Collector, Rajpipla and the order dated August 30, 2003 passed by the Joint Secretary, Revenue (Appeals).
The facts, shortly stated, be thus :-
It is the case of the petitioner that he was cultivating land admeasuring 2 Acres and 6 gunthas bearing Survey No.39 situated at village Nivalda, Taluka Dediapada, District Bharuch which belongs to the respondent No.4. As the owner of the said land i.e. the respondent No.4 was desirous to sell the land, the petitioner agreed to purchase the land and accordingly, an agreement to sell dated March 8, 1973 was executed by the respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioner. By the said agreement to sell, the price of the land was fixed at Rs.1400/-; a sum of Rs.1080/- was paid at the time of execution of the agreement to sell and the balance amount of Rs.320/- was to be paid after the necessary permission of the authority under the Bombay Land Revenue Code was obtained. It appears that with respect to the said agreement to sell, an entry was mutated in the record of rights on December 26, 1977.
The record further reveals that for the first time in the year 1990, the authorities took cognizance of the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 as, according to the authorities, the same was hit by the provisions of Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Ultimately vide order dated November 30, 1996 passed by the Deputy Collector, Rajpipla, it was directed that the land in question be taken over as the possession of the petitioner was unauthorised being hit by the provisions of Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision application under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code before the Joint Secretary, Revenue (Appeals) who, in turn, confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector and rejected the revision application. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner has come up with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed on the short point of gross and inordinate delay in initiating action for the alleged breach of the provisions of Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The transaction between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 is of the year 1973. It appears that the cognizance of the same was taken by the authorities in 1990 i.e. almost after a period of around 17 years. Apart from the above, an error which goes to the root of the matter is that the authorities should not have come to the conclusion that the transaction is hit by Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code as in the year 1973 Section 73AA was not on the statute. Section 73AA came to be enacted for the first time in 1980. Therefore, on such ground also the proceedings initiated were not justified. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the Deputy Collector as well as the order passed by the Joint Secretary Revenue (Appeals) confirming the order of the Deputy Collector are required to be set aside.
At this stage, Mr Dave, who is appearing for the original owner of the land, submits that the petitioner was to act according to the terms of the agreement but has failed to act accordingly. According to Mr Dave, his client is still in possession of the land. Be that as it may, I am not going into the controversy between the petitioner and the respondent No.4. If the respondent No.4 is aggrieved by non-performance of the terms of the agreement at the end of the petitioner, it shall be open for him to initiate appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum in accordance with law. Since this petition is confined only to two orders which have been impugned, I have expressed my opinion only to that extent.
In the above view of the matter, this petition succeeds. The order dated November 30, 1996 passed by the Deputy Collector, Rajpipla and the order dated August 30, 2003 passed by the Joint Secretary, Revenue (Appeals) are hereby set aside. Rule is made absolute.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) zgs Page 5 of 5