Gujarat High Court
M/S Navratna Corporation vs State Of Gujarat on 20 April, 2023
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3589/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3589 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
===============================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
M/S NAVRATNA CORPORATION
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AMRISH K PANDYA(3219) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2.3,4.1
MR .B A PATEL(5281) for the Respondent(s) No. 2.1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No.
1,2.2,2.4,2.5,2.6,3.1,4.2,4.3,4.4,4.5,4.6,4.7,5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 20/04/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocate Mr.Amrish K. Pandya for the petitioners, learned Assistant Page 1 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:24 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3589/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined Government Pleader Ms.Hetal Patel for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr.B.A.Patel for the respondent No.2.1.
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for respondents waive service of Rule.
2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :
"a) Be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 16/12/2022 passed in Revision Application being No. MVV/BKP/Gandhinagar/ 01/2020 by the respondent No.1 (Annexure- A) in the interest of justice.
b) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the order dated 16/12/2022 passed in Revision Application being No. MVV/BKP/Gandhinagar/01/2020 by respondent no.1 in the interest of Justice.
c) Be pleased to pass any other and such further orders that may be deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of justice."
3. The brief facts of the case are as under : Page 2 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:24 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3589/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined 3.1. It is the case of the petitioners that from the Revenue Records, it appears that the land bearing Block/Survey No.29 (now included in Town Planning scheme No. 16), Final Plot No.21 admeasuring 2302 sq. mtrs situated at Mouje: Pethapur, Taluka and District:
Gandhinagar was originally owned by Punjabhai Dhanabhai Vaghari and on account of death of Punjabhai Dhanabhai Vaghari, the name of his legal heir i.e. Durgabhai Punjabhai was mutated in the record of rights vide mutation Entry No. 63.
3.2. Thereafter, on death of Durgabhai Punjabhai, the name of his legal heir i.e. Khodabhai Durgabhai was mutated in the record of rights vide mutation Entry No. 7490 dated 01.12.1990 and subsequently, the name of Page 3 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:24 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3589/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined Manekben Durgabhai came to be mutated in the record of rights vide mutation Entry No.9007 on 01.07.1998.
3.3. It is the case of the petitioners that Khodabhai Durgabhai Vaghari expired on 10.08.2006 and after his death, the names of his legal heirs i.e. (i) Champaben Wd/o Khodabhai (ii) Harkhaben Khodabhai (iii) Gitaben Khodabhai (iv) Lataben Khodabhai (v) Pravinbhai Khodabhai (vi) Gopalbhai Khodabhai and (vii) Rajivbhai Khodabhai i.e respondent No.4.1 to 4.7 came to be mutated in the record of rights i.e. mutation Entry No.11273 dated 05.10.2006.
3.4. It is the case of the petitioners that the legal heirs of Koya Chutha Punjabhai Dhanabhai i.e respondent No. 2 challenged the Page 4 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:24 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3589/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined mutation Entry Nos.63, 7490 and 11273 before the Prant officer, Gandhinagar by filing RTS/Appeal/SR/13/2016 and after hearing the parties, the Prant Officer deregistered the said Appeal vide order dated 28.01.2019 and entry of the said order also came to be mutated in the record of rights vide mutation Entry No.17513 dated 18.03.2019. The said order came to be challenged by the heirs of respondent No.2 before the respondent No.5 i.e Collector, Gandhinagar by filing CB/RTS/ Pethapur/Revision/D.S./64/2019 alongwith delay application and the Collector, Gandhinagar vide order dated 14.10.2019 condoned the delay and directed to hear the matter in seriatum. 3.5. After condonation of delay, the revision was numbered as CB/RTS/Pethapur/Revision/172/2019 and after Page 5 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:24 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3589/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined hearing the parties, the Collector rejected the said Revision Application vide order dated 26.07.2021 and confirmed the order of the Prant officer dated 28.01.2019. 3.6. It is the case of the petitioners that after the dismissal of the said Appeal, the heirs of respondent No.4 applied to grant permission for change of use of land from agriculture to non-agricultural purpose under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (for short 'the Code, 1879') and the same was granted by the Collector, Gandhinagar i.e respondent No.5, vide order dated 12.06.2019 beingCB/NA/Gandhinagar/Pethapur/29/100586/2019 It is the case of the petitioners that even entry to that effect came to be mutated in the record of rights vide mutation Entry No.17643 dated 11.07.2019.
Page 6 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:24 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3589/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined 3.7. It is the case of the petitioners that to develop the land in question, the petitioner No.1-Firm purchased the said land by registered sale-deed from the respondent Nos.4.1 to 4.7 on 12.09.2019 bearing registration No.22790 and after paying full consideration to them, the petitioner No.1- Firm became the sole owner and occupier of the said land.
3.8. The mutation entry of the registered sale-deed was also mutated in the record of rights vide mutation Entry No.17741 dated 12.09.2019. It is the case of the petitioners that against the said entry, the heirs of Koya Chutha Vaghari, filed their objections on 24.10.2019 and 01.11.2019 and thereby, the RTS dispute case came to be registered by the Page 7 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:24 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3589/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar being RTS/Dispute/Case No.238/2019 and after hearing the parties, vide order dated 30.11.2019, the Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar cancelled the said mutation Entry No.17741.
3.9. It is the case of the petitioners that being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar, the petitioners filed an Appeal before the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar being RTS/Appeal/SR/457/2019 under Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules (for short 'the Rules') and after hearing the parties, the Prant Officer allowed the said Appeal vide order dated 21.09.2020 and set-aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar dated 30.11.2019 in RTS/Dispute/Case No.238/2019 and certified the mutation Entry no.17741 Page 8 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:24 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3589/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined pertaining to the sale of the land in question by the petitioners and the same was challenged by the heirs of Koya Chutha by filing the Revision Application being CB/RTS/Pethapur/Revision/372/2020 under Rule 108(6) of the Rules before the Collector, Gandhinagar and after hearing the parties, the Collector, Gandhinagar rejected the said Revision Application vide order dated 09.09.2021 and confirmed the order passed by the Prant officer dated 21.09.2020 and thus, the Entry No.17741 was confirmed by the order of the Collector, Gandhinagar and the development permission was also granted by the GUDA on 11.06.2020 and after approval of plans from the competent authority and obtaining RERA Registration Certificate dated 24.02.2021, the petitioners floated a residential residential cum commercial scheme Page 9 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:24 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3589/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined named as "SWARAJ-9+" and at present the construction work is going on.
3.10. It is the case of the petitioners that the heirs of respondent No.2 and others have also filed Special Civil Suit No.269 of 2019 and Special Civil Suit No.08 of 2020 before the Civil Judge, Gandhinagar for cancellation of sale-deed, declaration and permanent injunction but till date, no injunction or relief is granted by the Civil Court in favour of the respondents.
3.11. It is the case of the petitioners that heirs of deceased Vaghari Koya Chutha i.e respondent Nos.2.1 to 2.6 challenged the order of the Collector, Gandhinagar dated 12.06.2019 granting NA permission with respect to the said land in question by filing the Revision Page 10 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:24 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3589/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined Application No.01 of 2020 before the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) (for short 'the SSRD').
3.12. The petitioners received the first notice for hearing of the said Revision Application which was fixed on 20.02.2021 and on that day, the Advocate of the petitioners appeared and filed appearance/vakaltnama and sought time to file reply, but due to pandemic crisis, the hearing of the matters were postponed by the respondent No.1 and the same was fixed for hearing on 28.03.2022 and 25.04.2022 and as the petitioner No.2 was out of country and not available, the Advocate of the petitioners sought time and the time was granted by the respondent No.1. 3.13. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for hearing on 16.11.2022 but as no notice of Page 11 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:24 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3589/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined hearing was issued in Revision Application, the Advocate for the petitioners could not remain present on that day and in absence of the petitioners or their Advocate, the hearing of the said Revision Application was conducted.
3.14. It is the case of the petitioners that during the period from 2020 to 2022, several orders have been passed by the Revenue Authorities and the respondent Nos.2.1 to 2.6 are aware of the said orders but still have suppressed the said orders and mislead the respondent No.1 and obtained the stay order dated 16.12.2022 by suppressing the material facts and making false submissions and therefore, the impugned order which is contrary to the facts and record of the case and obtained by suppression of material facts, Page 12 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:24 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3589/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Amrish Pandya for the petitioners submitted that the Special Secretary Revenue Department (for short 'the SSRD') could not have passed an order of status-quo with regard to the land in question as well as the record together during the pendency of the Revision Application No.1 of 2020. It was submitted that the dispute raised before the SSRD is with regard to the revenue entries and not with regard to the property in question. It was therefore submitted that the impugned order passed by the SSRD is required to be quashed and set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.B.A.Patel who appears for respondent No.2.1 submitted that the SSRD has rightly granted the impugned order to Page 13 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:24 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3589/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined maintain the status-quo with regard to the record, however, so far as the status-quo with regard to the property in question is concerned, the same may be modified.
6. In view of the above submissions, the impugned order passed by the SSRD is modified and the order to maintain the status-quo qua the entries in revenue record is continued till final disposal of the Revision Application No.1 of 2020 and the order of status-quo with regard to the property in question is set aside.
7. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) PALAK Page 14 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:24 IST 2023