Gujarat High Court
Rabari Gokalbhai Jaksibhai Since Decd. ... vs State Of Gujarat on 12 January, 2023
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/8328/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8328 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: sd/-
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
RABARI GOKALBHAI JAKSIBHAI SINCE DECD. THROUGH LEGAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 9 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TRILOK J PATEL(658) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Respondent(s) No. 7.1,8
MR RONAK B. RAVAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,10
MR CHIRAG B PATEL(3679) for the Respondent(s) No.
2,7.1.1,7.1.2,7.1.3,7.1.4,8.1,8.2,8.3,8.4,8.5,8.6
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4.1,5,6,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 12/01/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition emanates from the impugned order dated 06.12.2005 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (for short "the GRT / Tribunal"), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.TEN.BA.14 of 1995, whereby the Tribunal has set aside the concurrent findings of the fact Page 1 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:36:49 IST 2023 C/SCA/8328/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023 arrived at by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Patan 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 26.09.1994 in Tenancy Appeal No.32 of 1994, wherein and whereby both the authorities have closed the inquiry under Section 84(C) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Tenancy Act').
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under : -
2.1 The land bearing Survey Nos.18/1, 18/2 and 17 of Village Chandalaj, Taluka Siddhapur, District Mehsana were purchased by the petitioners by a registered a sale deed dated 13.06.1985 in consideration of Rs.15,000/- from its original owners, who are the respondent Nos.2 to 8 herein and since then the petitioners are possessing, occupying and cultivating the aforesaid lands as owners of the lands.
2.2 It is the case of the petitioners that somewhere in the year 1992-1993 i.e. after about 8 years, upon the complaint of the original land owners, the Collector, Mehsana directed the Mamlatdar and ALT, Siddhapur to initiate inquiry under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act as the transaction between the petitioners and respondents seems to be in contravention of Sections 2(6) and 63 of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, the Mamlatdar and ALT initiated inquiry by registering case as Ganot Case No.84(C)/2(6)5458/93 by issuing a notice to the concerned persons.Page 2 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:36:49 IST 2023
C/SCA/8328/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023 2.3 Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the concerned proceedings before the Mamlatdar and ALT, who vide order dated 24.09.1993 closed the inquiry by holding that there is no breach of Sections 2(6) and 63 of the Tenancy Act, as the petitioners are agricultural labourers and there is no breach of any Tenancy Act.
3.4 Against the aforesaid order date 24.09.1993, one of the applicants - Mr.Kantibhai Kashibhai Patel preferred an appeal under Section 74 of the Tenancy Act, before the Deputy Collector, (Land Reforms), Mehsana. By the order dated 26.09.1994, the Collector, upheld the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Sidhhapur of closing the inquiry initiated under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act. Against the order of the Deputy Collector, an appeal was preferred being Revision Application No.321 of 1994 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 06.12.2005 has set aside both the orders passed by the authorities below, which is under challenge before this Court.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Trilok Patel, has submitted that for another land bearing Survey Nos.81/1, 82/2 and 141/2 of the same village, an inquiry under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act was initiated and the Mamlatdar has closed such proceedings, which have become final and hence, the Tribunal should have considered the said provision, however, it is submitted that without appreciating the aforesaid facts, the order passed by the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector, have Page 3 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:36:49 IST 2023 C/SCA/8328/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023 been set aside by the GRT. It is submitted that the entire proceedings have been initiated at the instance of one Patel Kantibhai Kashiram, who has no locus standi or legal right or interest in the property in question. By placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Ratnaprabhabai d/o. Hirojirao Naranrao Mane vs. M/s.Tulsidas V. Patel and Ors., 1982 (2) G.L.R. 213, it is submitted that having pocketed the sale transaction and after selling the land, it is not open for the private respondents to raise any grievance against the transfer, since they are not entitled to get the back land in question, in any circumstances. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Valjibhai Jagjivanbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2005 (3) G.L.R. 1852. Further, it is submitted that the proceedings itself are barred by the delay since the sale transaction of the year 1985 and the inquiry was initiated by the revenue authority in 1993 after a period of 8 years.
4.1 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Patel, has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Gulabbhai Ravjibhai Patel vs. Badriprasad Vithalrao Bende and Ors., 2011 (3) G.L.R. 2472. Similar reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Rameshbhai Ambalal Shah vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., 2011 (3) G.L.R. 2587. Finally, learned advocate Mr.Patel, has submitted that by alleging fraud, the private respondents have in fact initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner and ultimately by the judgment dated 31.01.1992, such proceedings have culminated into the acquittal of the petitioners.
Page 4 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:36:49 IST 2023C/SCA/8328/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023 4.2 It is thus, submitted that the Tribunal has failed to brought on record and in fact both the authorities i.e. the Mamlatdar as well as the Deputy Collector have arrived at categorically findings that the father of the petitioners was an agriculturist and his name was running in the revenue record since 1932 to 1942. It is submitted that the petitioners had produced the relevant 7/12 extract in support of their case showing that they were the agriculturists and hence, the Tribunal has fallen in error in reversing the concurrent findings of the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is required to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Chirag Patel, appearing for the private respondents has vehemently opposed this writ petition and has submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal does not require any interference and the same is appropriately passed. It is submitted that in fact the petitioners are non-agriculturists but who have cattle i.e. buffaloes and the Tribunal has precisely set aside the orders passed by the Mamlatdar as well as the Deputy Collector. It is further submitted by Mr.Patel that even if it is assumed that the petitioners were agriculture labours, the same would not make them agriculturists and hence, the sale, which was entered upon between the petitioners as well as the private respondents, is in violation of the provisions of Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act, which has been precisely held by the Tribunal. It is thus submitted that no interference to the order of the Tribunal is required, at this stage, in view of the Page 5 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:36:49 IST 2023 C/SCA/8328/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023 categorical finding that the petitioners are not non- agriculturists.
6. Supporting the aforesaid submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has also asserted that the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal does not require any interfere as the same is appropriately passed reversing the findings of the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector. It is submitted that the Tribunal has precisely held that the petitioners are not the agriculturists and hence, the sale transaction is hit by the provisions of Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act.
7. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.
8. The facts which are established from records are that by the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 06.12.2005, the concurrent findings of the Mamlatdar as well as Deputy Collector holding the petitioners as agriculturists have been set aside. It is also not in dispute that the proceedings under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act have been initiated after considerable delay of more than 8 years as the sale transaction is of 1985 and the proceedings are initiated in the year 1993 that too at the behest of the private respondents who had sold the land to the petitioners.
9. In the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Labhubhai Veljibhai Gajera vs. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Dept. Gujrat State and Ors., 2011 (1) G.L.R. 279, the proceedings under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation Page 6 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:36:49 IST 2023 C/SCA/8328/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023 and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, which have been initiated after more than three years are set aside. By now, it is no more res integra that the power conferred under the provisions of Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act is required to be exercised within a reasonable period. Hence, the impugned order of the Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside since the same is passed against the well settled proposition of law.
10. The another aspect which is required to be noticed is that the proceedings are initiated by the private parties, after pocketing the sale consideration by alleging that the sale was in violation of the statute, the private respondents have alleged after 8 years that they are not agriculturists. In the case of Smt. Ratnaprabhabhai (supra), this Court has held thus : -
'XXX.....it is pertinent to note that the State of Gujarat has not challenged the order of the Manlatdar by which the Mamlatdar had refused to exercise suo motu powers under section 84C. The State would have been the proper party which could have felt aggrieved if at all by the order of the Mamlatdar. Under the scheme of section 84C (1) and (2), if a transaction pertaining to any agricultural land is found to be invalid and if the patties to the proceedings are not willing to restore status quo ante, the -- concerned lands would vest in the State Government.
Mr.S.R. Shah learned advocate appearing for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 made it clear that these respondents are not willing to get status quo ante restored so., far as the lands in question are concerned. In such an eventuality, the only order which could have followed would have been the order of 'the Mamlatdar vesting the lands in the State. Such an order would never have benefited the petitioner in the least. The State which could have got these lands vested in it by any effective exercise of suo motu powers by the Mamlatdar under séc. 84C did not think it proper to challenge his order refusing to take such action. In these circumstances, it is difficult to appreciate how the petitioner-original vendor of the lands Page 7 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:36:49 IST 2023 C/SCA/8328/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023 felt aggrieved by the decision of the Mamlatdar who had refused to set aside pétitioner's sale transaction of 1962 in favour of respondent No. 1. The Assistant Collector, as a court of appeal, was justified when he took the view that the petitioner's appeal itself before the appellate authority under the Tenancy Act was not maintainable. This is the additional reason why no useful purpose can be served by remanding these proceedings for a fresh decision at the instance of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner having pocketed Rs. 1,00,060/- years back in 1962 is. trying to catch at a straw and is practically indulging in the policy of dog in the manger by seeing that the banging sword of the present litigation lingers on so that at sometime respondents Nos.1 and 3 may come round and may give some. added financial advantage to the petitioner by way of bargain and if the present proceedings are kept pending, such oblique intention of the petitioner may get fructified. The court obviously cannot be a party to such a design. When the petitioner is not a legally aggrieved party, it is impossible to give her any relief in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution by restoring these proceedings to the file of the Tribunal so that the transaction entered into by the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 1 years back in 1962 may once again be brought i in the melting pot."
11. Thus, it is held by this Court that after having pocketed the money, it was not open for the sellers to raise objections against the land in question. If the sale transaction was against any statute, the State authority could have initiated suo motu action, however, the authorities under the statute have not doubted the status of the petitioners as agriculturists. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Rinki Shahikant Gandhi Vs. Mamlatdar, Vadodara Taluka, [2012 (2) GLR 1275]. It is held that a vendor of land who is a willing party and who has pocketed the sale consideration is not an aggrieved party and he cannot be permitted to take any advantage of his own wrong. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal should have restricted itself in setting aside the concurrent findings of Mamltdar and the Deputy Collector in Page 8 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:36:49 IST 2023 C/SCA/8328/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023 wake of the fact that the private respondents have questioned the status of the petitioners after a period of 8 years that too after pocketing money of the sale transaction. Even otherwise, the criminal proceedings initiated by them against the petitioners of alleging fraud have resulted in their acquittal. Hence. the impugned order dated 06.12.2005 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.TEN.BA.14 of 1995, is hereby quashed and set aside.
12. In view of foregoing reasons and considering the facts of the case, the present writ petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute.
sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) MB/ 115 Page 9 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:36:49 IST 2023