Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Kherunben Valimahmadbhai on 8 December, 2020

Author: J.B.Pardiwala

Bench: J.B.Pardiwala, Ilesh J. Vora

         C/CA/3016/2020                                        ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                   R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3016 of 2020
              In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 937 of 2020
                                  With
                R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 937 of 2020
             In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19455 of 2018

==========================================================
                          STATE OF GUJARAT
                                Versus
                      KHERUNBEN VALIMAHMADBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KM ANTANI, AGP (1) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

                       Date : 08/12/2020
                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) Having heard the learned AGP appearing for the applicant-State and having considered the averments made in the Civil Application, the delay is condoned. Civil Application stands disposed of.

The present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the State of Gujarat and is directed against the order passed by a Single Judge of this Court dated 25 th September 2019 in the Special Civil Application No.19455 of 2018, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ-application preferred by the original writ-applicant by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Special Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 24 01:48:25 IST 2021 C/CA/3016/2020 ORDER Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) dated 24 th September 2018.

We have heard Mr.K.M.Antani, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent - State and Mr.Vimal A.Purohit, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent (original writ-applicant).

The learned Single Judge has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bankim Bipinbhai Desai Vs. State of Gujarat and others (SCA No.7354 of 2005, decided on 2.8.2005) and also few other judgments of this Court. The question before the learned Single Judge was, whether the Collector could have declined to grant N.A. permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, to the original writ-applicant on the ground that, for a particular period of time, i.e. for about 10 months, the writ-applicant ceased to be an agriculturist and, therefore, could not have purchased a parcel of agricultural land during that interregnum period. The learned Single Judge took notice of the fact that the original writ-applicant is an agriculturist and she had relinquished her share in a parcel of agricultural land by way of Relinquishment Deed No.457 dated 6th February 1990, and in regard to this transaction, an entry bearing No.2020 was also mutated in the record of rights on 20th February 1990. Thereafter, the writ-applicant purchased another parcel of agricultural land by way of a registered sale-deed dated 11th December 1990, and an entry in this regard bearing No.965 was mutated in the revenue record dated 4th June 1991. It is with respect to this parcel of agricultural land purchased way back on 4th June 1991 that the writ-applicant prayed for N.A permission.

Indisputably, the transaction with respect to the registered sale deed dated 11th December 1999 never came to be challenged by the revenue authority at any point of time on the ground of breach of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge is justified in taking the view that it would be too much to say that on 11 th December 1990 when the writ-applicant purchased another parcel of agricultural land, she had ceased to be an agriculturist. The issue being covered by the judgment of this very High Court, in our opinion, no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order.

In the result, the present Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(J. B. PARDIWALA, J.) (ILESH J. VORA, J.) /MOINUDDIN Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 24 01:48:25 IST 2021