Gujarat High Court
Padji vs Deputy on 17 August, 2010
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/17457/2006 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17457 of 2006
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17458 of 2006
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17463 of 2006
=========================================================
PADJI
SHAKRAJI THAKORE & 6 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEPUTY
COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HIMANSU M PADHYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 7.
MR MR MENGDEY, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 18/08/2006
ORAL
ORDER
The petitioners have preferred the petition for challenging the order dated 29.05.2006 passed by the State Government whereby, the revision of the petitioners is dismissed.
Heard Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Padhya for the petitioners. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the order was passed by the State Government ex-parte inasmuch as, the petitioners, due to unavoidable reason could not remain present on the date of the hearing and the matter proceeded ex-parte. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the transaction is of the year 1980 and is not hit by the provisions of Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code as the said Section has come into operation in the year 1980. It has also been submitted that the Civil Suit is preferred by the private respondent being Special Civil Suit No. 74/99 claiming to be in possession of the land. However, the Civil Court has found the possession of the petitioners and the Appeal from Order is also dismissed and therefore, it has been submitted that the order of the State Government deserves to be interfered with.
Having considered the above, it appears that as such, if the petitioners have not remained present on the date fixed for hearing, it cannot be said that the State Government while exercising revisional jurisdiction has committed any jurisdictional error nor the exercise of discretion can be said as so perverse, which may call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The factum of actual physical possession as such, cannot be related with the aspects of entry proceedings or the bar of the provisions of Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
Apart from the above, the documents which are produced prima facie shows that they are of the year 1983 and 1984 and therefore, it cannot be said that the bar of Section 73AA was not in operation. I am not concluding the said issue at this stage since the Civil Suit is pending between the petitioner and the private respondents in the Civil Court being Special Civil Suit No. 74/99. The parties to the proceedings of Civil Suit may pursue their rights as may be permissible in the appropriate Civil Suit and the Civil Court shall be at the liberty to take independent view of the matter on the basis of material before it without being influenced by any of the observations made by the revenue authority in the entry proceedings and the present order, which also arise therefrom. It cannot be said that the State Government has committed any jurisdictional error nor can it be said that the exercise of discretion is perverse by the State Government, which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.
In view of the above, no case is made out for interference and hence rejected.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) *bjoy Top