Gujarat High Court
Parshottambhai Manilal Patel vs State on 22 August, 2013
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt
Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt
PARSHOTTAMBHAI MANILAL PATEL....Petitioner(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT C/SCA/1054/2000 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1054 of 2000 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ====================================== 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, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================== PARSHOTTAMBHAI MANILAL PATEL....Petitioner Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondents ====================================== Appearance: MR BHARAT T RAO, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner MR.RAKESH R. PATEL, AGP for the Respondents No. 1 - 2 MR MC BAROT, ADVOCATE for the Respondents No. 3 - 4 ====================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 22/08/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocates for the parties. The petitioner by way of this petition has approached this Court invoking provision of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with following prayers.
(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, or any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon ble Court may deem fit, just and proper for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Review Application No.TEN.C.A.9/96 to 14/96 dated 17.11.1999 as well as the order passed by the Tribunal on 15.3.1996 in Tenancy Application No. TEN. B.A. No.528/95 to 533/95 for the reasons stated hereinabove ;
(B) Your Lordships be pleased to direct the Mamlatdar & ALT, Kalol, respondent No.2 herein to initiate proceedings under Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and necessary orders be passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act ;
(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of present petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Review Application No. TEN.C.A.9/96 to 14/96 dated 17.11.1999 as well as the order passed by the Tribunal on 15.3.1996 in Tenancy Application No. TEN. B.A. No.528/95 to 533/95 for the reasons stated hereinabove;
(D) Any other reliefs deemed fit and proper by Your Lordships may please be granted in the interest of justice.
Thus, what is essentially under challenge is orders passed by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Review Application No. TEN.C.A.9/96 to 14/96 dated 17/11/1999 and the order passed by the Tribunal on 15/03/1996 in Tenancy Application No. TEN. B.A. No.528/95 to 533/95 and with prayer for direction to the concerned Mamlatdar & ALT, Kalol respondent no.2 for initiating proceedings under Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
2. The facts in brief leading to filing this petition as could be culled-out from the memo of the petition deserve to be set out as under.
3. The petitioner owned a land bearing Block No.1236 at Village Vadsar, Taluka Kalol, admeasuring 1 Acre 15 Gunthas and 36 Are. The petitioner sold the said land to respondent nos.3 and 4 by a registered sale deed dated 23rd January, 1991, which bears document no.179. Pursuant to the aforesaid sale deed, the names of respondent nos.3 and 4 came to be mutated in the revenue record by Talati in Village Form No.6 being Entry No.1588 on 4th October, 1991. The said entry has been certified by the Certifying Officer with an endorsement that the notice under the provision of Rule 135-D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code has been duly served upon the respective parties. The petitioner s say in the memo of the petition is that the purchasers respondent nos.3 and 4 being not agriculturists, they could not have purchased the said land. The concerned Mamlatdar, Kalol vide his letter dated 18th March, 1992 made reference to Deputy Collector, Mehsana indicating the facts that the entry, which has been made by Entry No.1583 to 1587 and Certifying Officer is not in consonance with the provision of law, as the purchasers of agricultural land are not agriculturists and therefore, there was a violation of provision of Section 73 and Section 67 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and therefore, proceedings under Section 84-C may be initiated, which accordingly were directed. The Mamlatdar, thereafter, issued a notice and passed an order in Tenancy Case No.84C/Vad/677/94 dated 06/05/1994 ordering land being vested by the Government by Entry no.1236. It was noted that the notice served upon respondent nos.3 and 4, but they did not remain present before the ALT nor did they furnish the documents that they were agriculturists and after making detail inquiry with Village Lakhama and Boyana, he came to the conclusion that the respondent nos.3 and 4 were not agriculturists. The appeal was preferred before the Dy. Collector challenging the said order, who remanded the matter vide order dated 29th April, 1995 to Mamlatdar & ALT with a direction that after giving notices to all the concerned, the concerned Mamlatdar & ALT, Kalol initiated fresh proceedings and issued fresh notice on 31st July, 1995 and matter was fixed on 10th August, 1995. On 17th October, 1995, the respondent nos.3 and 4 approached the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal against the order by Dy. Collector (Land Reforms) Mehsana. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent nos.3 and 4 on 15th March, 1996 and set aside the order passed by Dy. Collector and also the order passed by Mamlatdar & ALT dated 06/05/1994. The present petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.2300 of 1996 before this Court challenging the order of Tribunal. The matter is admitted and on 3rd April, 2996 an ad interim relief was granted as prayed for. The concerned Collector, Mehsana issued suo motu notice under Rule 108 (6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 for certifying the Entry No.1583, 1584, 1585, 1586, 1587 and 1588 dated 15th November, 1991. The petitioner also received notice, but could not remain present before the Collector. The matter was adjourned to 17th March, 1993 and 24th March, 1993 and 6th April, 1995. The concerned Collector has set aside the Entry Nos.1583 to 1588. The said order was challenged by respondent nos.3 and 4 before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gandhinagar bearing No.11 of 1995, which came to be decided by the Dy. Secretary (Appeals) dismissing the same, confirming the order dated 31st May, 1994. The petitioner on this basis preferred the application to the Revenue Tribunal in the form of Review Application saying that in view of the order passed by the State, the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal was not maintainable as the appeal filed by the respondent nos.3 and 4 was against the provision of law and was not maintainable. The said application came to be dismissed by the Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 17th November, 1995, which came to be received by the petitioner in the last week of December 1999. The petitioner s petition was permitted to be withdrawn as the petitioner was before the tribunal.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the two certificates in respect of the respondent nos.3 and 4 being agriculturists are the real controversy and the tribunal did not appreciate the same and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside.
5. The Court has perused the orders impugned in this petition. The Court is of the view that the tribunal s reasons cannot be said to be illegal or unreasonable so as to call for any interference. The fact remains to be noted that the present petitioner has no locus whatsoever to bring in this petition this belatedly, as by way of this petition filed in the year 2000, what is sought to be challenged are the order passed on 17th November, 1999 and 15th March, 1996. The sheer delay on the part of the petitioner itself is sufficient for refusal of exercise of discretion in his favour. Moreover, the petitioner cannot be said to be a person in whose favour, the jurisdiction under Article 226 could be exercised as the petitioner himself is a one who has sold the land and now after having pocketed the sale proceedings cannot be permitted to challenge his own action of selling the land to so-called non-agriculturists. The belated challenge to the orders is otherwise also not maintainable by way of this petition. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat V/s. Patel Raghav Natha, reported in A.I.R. 1969 Supreme Court 1297, the belated action in this kind of matters are not be encouraged in any manner. Hence, the petition is in my view bereft of merits and required to be rejected and accordingly the same is rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Rathod...
Page 6 of 6