Gujarat High Court
Popatji Chhotaji Thakor vs State Of Gujarat on 20 April, 2023
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4380/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4380 of 2023
================================================================
POPATJI CHHOTAJI THAKOR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NM PATEL(6042) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,2,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5,2.6,2.7,2.8
MR.RAJESH B SONI(2632) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,2,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5,2.6,2.7,2.8
MS HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent-State
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 20/04/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rajesh B. Soni for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Hetal Patel for the respondent-State.
2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29th November, 2022 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Page 1 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:25 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4380/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined Department (Appeals) (for short 'the SSRD').
3. The brief facts of the case are as under :
3.1. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were original land owners of land bearing block no.257b and 258 of village Badodara, District-Ahmedabad. 3.2. On 20.10.2001, the Deputy Collector, Viramgam passed the order for the conversion of land from New Tenure to old Tenure. On 22.10.2001, Entry No.2900 was mutated of the said order dated 22.10.2001 and certified on 29.07.2002. On 03.12.2002, respondent No.3 purchased the said land from the petitioners by way of registered sale-deed. 3.3. On 13.12.2001, Entry No.2903 was Page 2 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:25 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4380/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined mutated on the basis of said sale-deed. 3.4. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Entry No.2903 was not certified because of breach of condition No.4 of order dated 20.10.2001 and therefore, the said order came into force after due approval of the District Collector.
3.5. Thereafter, the State of Gujarat initiated proceedings for breach of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'the Tenancy Act'). 3.6. It is the case of the petitioners that on 29.01.2005, the Mamlatdar & ALT passed an order on the basis of consent of both the parties and directed that the land to be restored in the name original owner within Page 3 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:25 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4380/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined period of three months failing which, the said land to be into Government land. 3.7. It is the case of the petitioners that on 17.04.2017, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal rejected the Review Application No.TEN/BA/97/2012 in which, the Tribunal held that the applicant i.e. the respondent No.3 herein had not produced any evidence to prove his status of farmer in response of his sale-
deed dated 03.12.2001 for land bearing R.S.No.257b of Village: Badodara, Taluka:Daskroi, District:Ahmedabad. 3.8. It is the case of the petitioners that on 13.06.2017, the respondent No.3 herein, made another attempt to insert Entry No.3869 in the revenue record based on the earlier sale-deed dated 03.12.2001. The said entry was Page 4 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:25 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4380/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined mutated in the revenue record of block No.257B (New block No.129). The petitioners filed an objection application and the Revenue Officer, i.e. Circle Officer registered the said Entry No.3869 as disputed entry.
3.9. It is the case of the petitioners that the Mamlatdar, Daskroi proceeded under Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules but without hearing the petitioners, the Mamlatdar decided the said dispute and certified the said entry i.e. Entry No.3869 in favour of the respondent No.3.
3.10. Having regard to the repeated proceedings, the petitioner No.1 filed an application to the Collector regarding the conduct of Mamlatdar. It is the case of the petitioners that the Collector did not take Page 5 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:25 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4380/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined any action against the Mamlatdar and advised the petitioner to challenge the order by way of filing an Appeal.
3.11. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners challenged the said order of Mamlatdar dated 31.08.2017 before Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad and the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad confirmed the order of Mamlatdar on 02.06.2018 and rejected the RTS Appeal of teh petitioners. The petitioners challenged the said order of Deputy Collector before the Collector, Ahmedabad being LB/REV.A/NO.461/2018.
3.12. On 29.06.2019, the petitioners filed an application to the Collector, Ahmedabad to consider the conduct of Revenue Officer as well as the respondent No.3 regarding Contempt Page 6 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:25 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4380/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined of Court for repeated proceedings and requested to refer the matter before this Court for necessary proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act. As the Collector, Ahmedabad was not taking action and not decided the said application, the petitioners preferred Special Civil Application No.346 of 2020 before this Court.
3.13. It is the case of the petitioners that on 08.01.2020, this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Biren Vaishnav) directed the District Collector, Ahmedabad to hear and decide the application filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of order and further directed that the application to be decided on the point of law involved therein. Page 7 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:25 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4380/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined 3.14. It is the case of the petitioners that the law point in the application was that the order dated 31.08.2017 is nothing but inference in the Appellate order dated 17.04.2017 passed by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the same is required to be decided separately as per the diretion of this Court. However, the said law point was not decided by the District Collector, Ahmedabad. It is the case of the petitioner that the Collector willfullly disobeyed/ignored the direction of this Court and rejected the revision application.
3.15. Therefore, the petitioners approached this Court for necessary action under Contempt of Courts Act. However, on 02.05.2022, this Court dropped the contempt proceedings with a Page 8 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:25 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4380/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined liberty to challenge the order dated 15.02.2020 in accordance with law. The petiitoners challenged the order dated 15.02.2020 before the SSRD by way of filing Revision under Rule 108(6)(A) of Bombay Land Revenue Rules, however, on 29.11.2022, the said Revision was dismissed and order of the District Collector dated 15.02.2020 was confirmed. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied, the petitioners have preferred this petition. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Soni for the petitioners submitted that the SSRD has rejected the Revision Application No.19 of 2020 on two grounds namely, that the petitioners have no locus in view of the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (for short 'the GRT') confirming the order dated 20th October, 2001 passed by the Deputy Page 9 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:25 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4380/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined Collector permitting the land to be converted from new tenure to old tenure land and that the respondent No.3 is held to be an agriculturist thereafter, is contrary to the record in asmuch as, the SSRD has failed to consider the earlier cancellation of Entry No.2903, which was pertaining to the sale-deed dated 03.12.2001 in favour of the respondent No.3 and for the same sale-deed, entry No.3869 is mutated on 13th June, 2017 without restoring the Entry No.2903.
4.2. It was submitted that the SSRD has also not considered that the Entry No.2903 was cancelled in view of the fact that the condition No.4 of order dated 20th October, 2001 passed by the Deputy Collector was not fulfilled as the said order was not reviewed and approved by the Collector, Ahmedabad or Page 10 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:25 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4380/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined competent authority.
4.3. It was further submitted by learned advocate Mr.Rajesh Soni that as per the compromise arrived at between the parties before the Civil Court in Special Civil Suit No.59 of 2006, the respondent No.3 has failed to execute a fresh sale-deed and therefore, the SSRD could not have rejected the Revision Application confirming the order passed by the Collector whereby, the entry No.3869 is certified for the sale-deed of 03.12.2001.
5. Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioners, it appears that SSRD has taken into consideration the following undisputed facts :
(i) that the sale-deed dated 03.12.2001 was a registered sale-deed by register Page 11 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:25 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4380/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined No.2711 in favour of the respondent No.3 executed by the late father of the petitioners.
(ii) there was a compromise between the petitioners and the respondent No.3 in Special Civil Suit No.59 of 2006 wherein, the petitioners and their father agreed to confirm the registered sale-deed No.2711 dated 03.12.2001 and accordingly, the Civil Court has passed a decree on 11th February, 2006 and therefore the petitioner has no locus standi thereafter to challenge the entry which was mutated in revenue records for sale-deed dated 03.12.2001 in favour of the respondent No.3. Page 12 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:25 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4380/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined
6. It is also an admitted position that the GRT by order dated 08.02.2017 dismissed the Revision Application No.15 of 2006 filed by the State Government wherein, the petitioners were also party respondent, on the ground of delay confirming the order dated 20th October, 2001 passed by the Deputy Collector for conversion of the land in question to the old tenure land. The SSRD has therefore, rightly held that the land in question was converted into old tenure land before the same was sold to the respondent No.3.
7. The only grievance of the petitioners that the respondent No.3 did not execute further fresh sale-deed pursuant to the compromise arrived at between the parties, was not the subject matter of dispute before the SSRD as the SSRD was only examining the veracity of Page 13 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:25 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4380/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023 undefined Entry No.3869 in the Revenue Records. In such circumstances, no interference is required to be made while exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere in the impugned order.
8. The petition therefore, being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) PALAK Page 14 of 14 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:41:25 IST 2023