Gujarat High Court
Patel Kantibhai Kashiram vs Rabari Gokalbhai Jaksibhai Since Decd. ... on 25 August, 2023
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1143/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1143 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8328 of 2006
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1143 of 2023
==========================================================
PATEL KANTIBHAI KASHIRAM
Versus
RABARI GOKALBHAI JAKSIBHAI SINCE DECD. THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR B S PATEL, SR COUNSEL with MR CHIRAG B PATEL(3679) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,10,11,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,10,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,3,4,4.1,5,6,7,7.1,8,9
MR KRUTIK PARIKH AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 25/08/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard the learned senior counsel Mr. B. S. Patel assisted by the learned counsel Mr. Chirag Patel appearing for the appellants and perused the record.
2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.01.2023 whereby the Writ Court has set aside the order dated 06.12.2005 passed by the Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.BA.14 of 1995 in setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Patan in the order dated 24.09.1993 in Tenancy Case No.84(C)/2(6)/5458/93 and the order passed by the Deputy Collector(Land Reforms), Mehsana dated Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 02:29:27 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1143/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2023 undefined 26.09.1994 in Tenancy Appeal No.32 of 1994. Both the above noted orders were passed by the authorities for closing the inquiry under Section 84(C) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The appellants herein/the respondents before the Writ Court are the vendors of the sale deed dated 13.06.1985, which was executed by them in favour of the petitioner/respondents herein. The learned Single Judge has recorded that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question and cultivating the same since after the date of the execution of the sale deed.
3. On a complaint made by the appellants some time in the year 1992-1993, after about eight years of the execution of the sale deed, an inquiry was initiated by the Collector, Mehsana under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act, on the premise that the transaction between the petitioners and the respondents was in contravention of Section 2(c) and 63 of the Tenancy Act. Notices were issued to the concerned persons and by the order dated 24.09.1993, the Mamlatdar & ALT had closed the inquiry holding that the petitioners are the agricultural labourer and there was no breach or violation of the provisions of the Tenancy Act. This order was challenged by one of the appellants by preferring an appeal under Section 74 of the Tenancy Act wherein vide order dated 26.09.1994, the Collector (Land Reforms), Mehsana upheld the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT. The revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal was instituted against the aforesaid orders, which was allowed vide order dated 06.12.2005 setting aside the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector.
4. The concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by both the authorities that the contention of the appellants in the complaint Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 02:29:27 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1143/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2023 undefined that the petitioners were not the agriculturist, was incorrect. We may record that the learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the proceedings under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act were initiated on the basis of the complaint made by the appellants herein who were vendors of the sale deed after a period of more than eight years of the transaction and further such proceedings, cannot continue at the behest of the person who himself sold the land by the sale deed in question
5. Moreover, on a query made by this Court, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants admits that the suit for cancellation of the sale deed on the plea of fraud, coercion and misrepresentation has already been instituted before the Civil Court and the same is pending as on date. There is no categorical assertion in the memo of the appeal with regard to the stage of the suit. It, thus, seems to us that the appellants, who are the vendors of the land in question, have submitted a complaint for invoking the provisions of Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act, in order to cut-short and bypass the rigours of the civil proceedings.
6. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge that the vendors of land who are willing party once have pocketed the sale consideration, cannot be treated as an aggrieved party and cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong.
7. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge in setting aside the order of the Tribunal and affirming the findings returned by the Mamlatdar & ALT and the Deputy Collector in the inquiry conducted by them, thus, closing the inquiry on the ground that there was no breach of Sections 2(c) and Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 02:29:27 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1143/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2023 undefined 63 of the Tenancy Act.
8. The present Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.
9. The Civil Application for stay stands disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) cmk Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 02:29:27 IST 2023