Gujarat High Court
Thakkar Pravinaben Lavjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 3 April, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12474/2019 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12474 of 2019
========================================================
THAKKAR PRAVINABEN LAVJIBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
========================================================
Appearance:
MS ARCHANA R ACHARYA(2475) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for
the Respondent(s) No. 3.3,4
MR GURUSHARAN VIRK GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH MS. DHARITRI
PANCHOLI AGP and MR JAYNEEL PARIKH AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR POPATJI H SOLANKI(5213) for the Respondent(s) No. 4.1,4.2,4.3,4.4,4.5
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3.1,3.2,5
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 03/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Archana Acharya on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader Mr. G.H. Virk with learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Dharitri Pancholi and learned AGP Mr. Jayneel Parikh on behalf of respondent- State. None has appeared for the private respondents.
2. By way of this petition the petitioner has inter alia sought for setting aside of an order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Case No. 1 of 2017 more particularly whereby request of the petitioner of returning the land of the petitioner which had been appropriated by the State Government, had been rejected.
3. Briefly stated it appears that the petitioner, who had purchased a parcel of land in the year 1983, has not been able to beneficially enjoy the land in question on account of certain action by the Governmental Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 23:26:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12474/2019 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025 undefined Authorities. To elaborate it appears that the petitioner had purchased land bearing the Survey No.96 admeasuring 3 Acres 14 Gunthas situated at village Rampura, Taluka Palanpur, District Banaskantha vide registered sale deed dated 13.01.1983 and name of the petitioner as owner of the land came to be mutated in the revenue record vide mutation entry No.170, certified on 21.03.1983. It would appear that after 8 years from the date of the registered sale deed, the Mamlatdar & ALT, had initiated proceedings with regard to the transaction of purchase by the petitioner on the ground of violation of Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was not an agriculturalist. It would appear that the Mamlatdar and ALT vide order dated 25.11.1991, held the transaction as being in violation of Section 63 of the Act and by virtue of powers available under Section 84C, had directed vesting of the land in the State Government. It would appear that the petitioner had immediately thereupon filed Tenancy Appeal before the Deputy Collector being Tenancy Appeal No.34 of 1992. While the said Tenancy Appeal was pending consideration, the Mamlatdar & ALT, vide an order dated 02.11.1992 had allotted the land in question to the respondent No.4 for a purchase price of Rs.400/- on certain terms and conditions.
4. On the other hand, it would appear that the Deputy Collector vide an order dated 29.12.1992 had rejected the appeal preferred by present petitioner confirming the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT. The petitioner having challenged the same before the GRT by preferring Tenancy Appeal No.286/1993. Parallelly, the respondent No.4 had filed an application before the Deputy Collector for conversion of the subject land from restricted tenure to unrestricted tenure, which request had been granted by the Deputy Collector vide an order dated 24.07.2008.
Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 23:26:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12474/2019 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025 undefined
4.1. Meanwhile, vide an order dated 07.10.2009, the GRT in Revision Application referred to hereinabove, had declared the petitioner to be an agriculturalist and had set aside the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector referred to hereinabove. The petitioner had thereupon preferred an application under Section 84C of the Act for restoration of possession. On the other hand, the respondent No.4 herein had questioned the order dated 07.10.2009 passed by the GRT before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.14646 of 2011 and vide an order dated 26.06.2015, a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had rejected the said writ petition. The respondent No.4 had challenged the order beofre the learned Division Bench of this Court by preferring Letters Patent Appeal No.1155 of 2015 and whereas the Division Bench vide decision dated 07.12.2015 had set aside the order passed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench as well as the order of the GRT referred to hereinabove, and had remanded the matter back to the GRT for a fresh decision after giving appropriate opportunity to the respondent No.4. The considerations which weighed with the Division Bench included a consideration that the respondent No.4 was having possession of the property in question since the year 1992.
4.2 The GRT in remand proceedings, vide an order dated 27.04.2017, had again set aside the orders passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT as well as the Deputy Collector. The petitioner had thereafter, preferred application before the Deputy Collector for restoring the possession of the land in question and whereas vide an order dated 29.03.2019, the Deputy Collector having rejected the said application, the petitioner had approached this Court.
Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 23:26:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12474/2019 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025 undefined
5. It would appear that vide interim orders while this Court had directed the Collector, Banaskantha to identify properties which could be allotted to the petitioner in lieu of the land of the petitioner which had been appropriated by the State Authorities, and whereas while it appears that the said proceedings had gone further to a certain extent, today learned Government Pleader tenders an affidavit by one Kamal Parthibhai Chaudhari, Deputy Collector, Banaskantha at Palanpur whereby the Deputy Collector has stated that the order of the Deputy Collector dated 29.03.2019 impugned in the present petition may be set aside by this Court and 15 days' time may be granted by this Court for giving possession of the subject land to the present petitioner.
6. Thus it would appear that the State is virtually conceding to the request of the petitioner and rightly so since it appears that except for the hasty action by the State officers at the relevant point of time of allotting the land to the respondent no. 4 herein, the entire conundrum would not have arisen at all.
7. It would also appear that the learned Advocate for the private respondents, i.e. the persons who were allotted the land, have not remained present in any of the proceedings nor the private respondents have themselves tried to intervene. Again the respondent no. 4 has also not challenged the order of the GRT dated 27.04.2017, whereby the order of the Mamlatdar & ALT as well as of the Deputy Collector, whereby the transaction of purchase by the petitioner had been set aside and the land was directed to be vested in the State. The relevance being that it is on account of the said order of the Mamlatdar and ALT that the land had Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 23:26:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12474/2019 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025 undefined vested in the State and consequently the land was allotted to the respondent no. 4. Thus it would be deemed that the private respondents would abide by whatever order that may be passed by this Court as they have acquiesced to the position.
8. Considering such a position and having regard to the affidavit by the State and also considering the fact that the land in question was belonging to the present petitioner i.e. purchased by the petitioner vide a registered sale- deed and thereafter having been vested with the State and further having allotted to the respondent no. 4, upon the orders of vesting, being set aside by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the necessary consequences of the land reverting back to the petitioner should follow. The State is also aligned to such a proposition.
9. At this stage learned Advocate Ms. Acharya on behalf of the petitioner would submit that since the land in question has been held by the private respondents for quite a long time i.e since the year 1992 and previously also when the Deputy Collector had gone to take measurement of the land in question, there was a law and order issue, therefore, appropriate directions may be passed by this Court so that the petitioner may not face any further difficulties at the time of taking over possession of the land or for retaining possession of the land thereafter.
10. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocates for the respective parties to this Court it would appear that the following directions would meet with the ends of justice:
[1] Order passed by the Deputy Collector, Banaskantha at Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 23:26:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12474/2019 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025 undefined Palanpur dated 29.03.2019 in Tenancy Case No. 1 of 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside.
[2] The respondent authorities, i.e the respondent no. 2 as well as the Collector, Banaskantha are hereby directed to return the land of the present petitioner i.e land bearing Survey No.96 admeasuring 3 Acres 14 Gunthas situated at village: Rampura (Karza), Taluka Palanpur, District : Banaskantha to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
[3] The above authorities shall ensure that vacant and peaceful possession of the land is handed over to the present petitioner.
[4] The authorities shall ensure that an undertaking be obtained from the private respondents that they shall not disturb or attempt to disturb the possession of the petitioner upon the land in question in any manner whatsoever. Such undertaking shall be retained by the Deputy Collector, Banaskantha and any breach thereafter shall be appropriately taken care of in accordance with law by the said authority.
11. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of as allowed.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) NIRU Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 23:26:15 IST 2025