Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat & 3 vs Sanidhya Co-Operative Housing Society ... on 23 July, 2014
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Mohinder Pal
C/LPA/485/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 485 of 2014
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1300 of 2009
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3920 of 2014
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 485 of 2014
With
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 488 of 2014
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1294 of 2009
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3924 of 2014
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 488 of 2014
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Appellant(s)
Versus
SANIDHYA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY & 3....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VISHAL PATEL, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 4
MR DD VYAS, SR. ADV. WITH DEEP D VYAS, ADVOCATE for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 23/07/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Both these appeals involve similar issues and therefore, facts Page 1 of 5 C/LPA/485/2014 ORDER are taken as arising in Letters Appeal No.485 of 2014..
The appeal is filed by the State Government challenging the judgment dated 12.8.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No.1300 of 2009. Short issue is regarding categorization of the land bearing Tika No.60 of City Survey No.3065 of Navsari admeasurring 347 sq. meters. Right from the inception of the practice of categorizing the tenures of the land, it was shown to be 'A' tenure. Only on 14.9.73, City Survey Officer, changed the categorization from 'A' to 'C' tenure. We are informed that 'A' tenure lands are revenue free by custom whereas 'C' tenure land are those which invite assessment payable to the Government under section 48 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 for non- agricultural use.
It appears that no specific order is available on record on the basis of which, the City Survey Officer changed the categorization and put an entry to that effect in the records of the land on 14.9.73. The original-owner, predecessor in title of the petitioner thereupon filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector, some time in the year 1994 questioning such entry. The Deputy Collector allowed the appeal and by his order dated 28.2.94 reversed the entry to 'A' tenure. He noted that upon inquiry it was found that the land was in Baroda State and right from the inception, it was categorized as 'A' tenure. City Survey Officer has not recorded any reason for changing the nature of tenure. The said order was taken in sou motu review by the Collector in terms of rule 108 of the Bombay Land Page 2 of 5 C/LPA/485/2014 ORDER Revenue Rules, for which purpose a notice was issued on 28.12.07. The Collector, reversed the order of the Deputy Collector and reinstated the entry of 'C' tenure by his order dated 22.8.2008. He observed that the land was agricultural land at the relevant time. There was no record to show the land was shown to be revenue free from the year 1914.
The petitioners herein, in the meantime, some time in the year 2005 purchased the land. They, therefore challenged the order of the Collector before the Revenue Secretary. The Revenue Secretary having dismissed the revision petition, they filed writ petition before this Court.
Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. It was recorded that the City Survey Officer without assigning proper reasons changed the tenure from 'A' to 'C'. This was done without any notice to the land-owners. Even such change in the entry was not communicated to them. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the Collector tried to take the order of the Deputy Collector in suo motu revision after an inordinate delay. Such exercise of powers after 12 years cannot be said to be reasonable period. It was also observed that as per the report of the City Survey Officer, even in the year 1914, there was a bungalow and the land thus had construction thereon. Even during the time of erstwhile State of Baroda, it was shown as 'A' tenure land. When the land formed part of Navsari, City Survey Superintendent carried out a detailed verification of rights and the tenure of the land was Page 3 of 5 C/LPA/485/2014 ORDER not changed. Inter-alia on such grounds, the writ petition came to be allowed. The orders of the Collector and the Revenue Secretary were quashed. The tenure of the land was restored to 'A' tenure.
Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we are broadly in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge. Right from the year 1914, the land was shown as revenue free land. When categorization was applied, from the inception it was shown as 'A' tenure land. This position obtained even during the erstwhile Gaekwad State times. Only in the year 1973, the City Survey Officer changed the tenure from 'A' to 'C'. Nothing is placed on record to suggest that such change in the record was backed by any reasoned order. Apparently, no order was passed. As recorded by the learned Judge, neither any notice was issued before changing the entry nor the change in entry was communicated to the owners. These facts must be seen in light of the alleged delay on the part of the Collector in taking suo motu revision under rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules.
Even otherwise, contemporaneous materials would suggest that the land all throughout was treated as 'A' tenure land. It was only in the year 1973 that the City Survey Officer unilaterally without giving reasons changed the categorization. Such order was correctly reversed by the Deputy Collector. The Collector took the order of the Deputy Collector in suo motu revision after a long period of time. Quite apart from the gap of more than 12 years, even Page 4 of 5 C/LPA/485/2014 ORDER the ownership of the land was changed in the meantime.
Under the circumstance, we see no reason to interfere. Letters Patent Appeal and the Civil Applications are dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MOHINDER PAL, J.) (vjn) Page 5 of 5