Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat Through vs Kiritkumar Amrutlal Lakadawala & 4 on 17 March, 2015
Author: K.S.Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri, A.G.Uraizee
C/LPA/470/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 470 of 2015
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 786 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3389 of 2015
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 470 of 2015
============================================================
====
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH....Appellant(s)
Versus
KIRITKUMAR AMRUTLAL LAKADAWALA & 4....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. BHARAT VYAS, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 17/03/2015
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. The present appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellantoriginal petitioner against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.786 of 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition.
2. Learned AGP for the appellant has submitted the the Page 1 of 5 C/LPA/470/2015 ORDER learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition. He has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned judgment without considering the material available on record. Therefore, he urged that this Court may allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
3. We have heard learned AGP for the appellant and perused the material available on record. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge in paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 6 has observed as under: "3. As it transpires from the impugned order, there is a chequered history with regard to the land in question. The brief facts as narrated in the impugned order clearly suggest that the land in question was acquired by the respondent no.3 and, thereafter, it was cultivated by the respondents as Vethiya, thereafter in 1976 when the respondentno.3 expired, it was cultivated by the heirs and the proceedings under the Tenancy Act were initiated, which has been referred to in detail. Therefore moot question is that the father of the respondent no.2, who received the land with occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act and could not have been given or sold by the registered sale deed as stated in the application. The land in question was thereafter transacted and ultimately, it was purchased by the father of the respondent no.1, Amrutbhai Lakadawala in the year 1971, who expired in 1988 and the name of the respondent was mutated vide entry no.1380 on 08.09.1988, which was duly certified on 02.11.1988. However, same was sought to be reviewed in purported exercise of powers for breach of Section 63 of the Act and the proceedings including Tenancy Page 2 of 5 C/LPA/470/2015 ORDER Case No.179/1997 started. The authorities below have passed an order which has led to filing of the aforesaid Revision Application before the Tribunal, who having considered the background of the facts passed impugned order with specific observation following the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat that the authorities below had no jurisdiction to take the matter in suo motu revision after more than 20 years and, therefore, the order passed by the Mamlatdar as well as Deputy Collector were illegal. It is this impugned judgment and order passed by the Revenue Tribunal at AnnexureA, which is sought to be challenged in the present petition by the State on the grounds stated in the petition.
4. However background of the facts as stated in detail and the orders including the order passed by the Additional Mamlatdar in Tenancy Case No.179/1997 at AnnexureB and also the order passed by the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Appeal No.22/1999 under the Tenancy Act proceed on the basis that there is violation of provisions of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act is required to be considered. However the land in question has been purchased by registered sale deed as back as in 1971 and, thereafter, it has been mutated and the notices have been certified in the year 1974 and thereafter in the year 1988. Therefore, the notice issued under the Tenancy Act by the Mamlatdar in purported exercise of power under Section 84(c) for breach of Section 63 read with Section 2(6) of the Act cannot be said to be justified and the tribunal has therefore set aside the same. It is well settled by catena of judicial pronouncement including the judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court in case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2013 (2) GLR 1788 that such powers cannot be exercised beyond reasonable period of time. It has been observed in the said judgment as under : "It must be fairly said that if the statute does not prescribe time limit for exercise of revisional powers, it does not mean that such powers can be exercised at any point of time even if there is a Page 3 of 5 C/LPA/470/2015 ORDER breach of Section 43 of the Act, which is a provision which relates to a new tenure land, rather it should be exercised within a reasonable period of time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. It is clear from various judgments of the Supreme Court that where a statutory provision for exercise of any suo motu powers of revision does not prescribe any limitation, the powers must be exercised within a reasonable period of time even in the case of transaction which would be termed as void transaction."
6. Therefore, moot question is as to what could be the reasonable period and certainly the period which has been involved in the present petition cannot be said to be a reasonable period for invocation and exercise of such powers. The Honble Division Bench of this Court in a judgment in case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya has considered this aspect at length discussing about what could be the reasonable period and made observations as quoted above."
4. Having carefully gone through the discussions made by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has, for cogent reasons, dismissed the writ petition. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any error or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Apart from that learned AGP for the appellant has not been able to contradict the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.
Page 4 of 5 C/LPA/470/2015 ORDER5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge is completely justified in dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, in our view, it will not be appropriate to disturb the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
6. Since the main appeal is dismissed, the Civil Application for stay does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (A.G.URAIZEE,J) pawan Page 5 of 5