Gujarat High Court
Jitendra Tehsildarsinh Yadav C/O T V ... vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary on 13 July, 2018
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/7941/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7941 of 2013
==========================================================
JITENDRA TEHSILDARSINH YADAV C/O T V YADAV
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN K PANERI for MR BHARGAV KARIA AND ASSO(6631) for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 8.1,8.2,8.3
DECEASED LITIGANT(100) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 8
MR RAKESH PATEL, AGP (1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 7
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 13/07/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Rakesh Patel, the learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. Tejas Satta, the learned counsel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the private respondents.
2. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"18(a) An appropriate Writ, order and / or directions for quashing and setting Page 1 of 12 C/SCA/7941/2013 ORDER aside the orders at Annexure H, K and N passed by the Respondents no.2 to 4 be issued and with an appropriate issuance of direction that the Petitioner can hold Survey no.370, 370 paiki, 348, 372 and 536 of the Village Chuli, Dhangadhra Surendranagar District; and,
(b) Any other Writ, order and/ or direction as the nature of the case deems fit be granted in the interest of justice and equities; and,
(c) Costs of the petition throught be awarded in view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove in favour of the Petitioner; and,
(d) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, the operation / implementation of the orders by the Respondents no.2 to 4 along with order dated 8.11.2012 passed by Respondent no.2 at Annexure 'N' in HKP/GHARKHED/SNR/1/ 2006 be stayed and further the Respondent no.5 be restrained from carrying on any changes within the revenue record as per Annexure 'O' in the interest of justice."
3. The case put up by the writ applicant in his own words as Page 2 of 12 C/SCA/7941/2013 ORDER pleaded in his writ-application is as under:
"2. The Petitioner has purchased a Agricultural land at Village: Chuli, Dhangadhra being survey no. 370, 370 paiki and 371 in all admeasuring 13 Acres and 13 Gunthas from Respondent no. 6 vide a registered Sale Deed dated 6.1.1993 and since thereafter, the Petitioner is in occupation and possession of the said agricultural land. The Petitioner had purchased the aforesaid land for the sum of Rs. 65,000/-. The aforesaid entry was recorded within the revenue record i.e. Hakkpatrak on 25.2.1993 vide entry no. 1493.
3. It is submitted that after having purchased the aforesaid agriclutural land, the Petitioner has incurred lot of expenses for the maintenance i.e. constructing borewell, getting electric connection from the Gujarat Electricity Board, have purchased submersible pump etc. for the aforesaid land. The Petitioner has also incurred expenses for the purpose of constructing boundry wall and maintaining the land for the purpose of agricluture at the relevant time. All the relevant bills pertaining to the Page 3 of 12 C/SCA/7941/2013 ORDER aforesaid expenses were produced by the Petitioner before the Respondent no. 4. The Petitioner however, craves leave to produce as and when directed by the Hon'ble Court.
4. It is submitted that on 11.7.1998 an adjoining land being survey no. 536 paiki at Village: Chuli, Dhangadhra was purchased by the Petitioner. The said agricultural land was purchased for Rs.
16875 and for which the necessary permission from the Deputy Collector Shri was also obtained. The said entry was recorded with the revenue department vide entry no. 1326.
5. It is submitted that the petitioner thereafter, purchased an agricultural land being survey no. 372 from the Respondent no. 7 at Village: Chuli, Dhangadhra and accordingly, the revenue entry at Form no. 6 being no. 1539 (S. no. 372) 20.1.1994 was approved.
6. The petitioner thereafter purchased survey no. 348 from Respondent no. 8 and accordingly the relevant entries were effected with in the revenue record.
7. It is submitted that after the Page 4 of 12 C/SCA/7941/2013 ORDER passage of time of 8 years and 4 months Respondent no. 4 initiated proceedings against the Petitioner and for which notice under section 54 and 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance was issued to the Petitioner. The concerned authorities issued notices and initiated proceedings against the Petitioner on the basis that the Petitioner was not an agriculturist and therefore, the aforesaid agricultural lands canno be hold by him. Accordingly, the Petitioner has submitted his objections in Gharkhed Ordinance Case no. 175/96-97 before the Respondent no. 4 with respect to the survey no 372 and 348 aforesaid. The Petitioner craves leave to refer and rely upon the same at the relevant time.
8. It is submitted that the Petitioner has contended that the father of the Petitioner is an agriculturist at Village: Bahna, District Agra, State:
Uttar pradesh and is holding an agricultural land. Further, the proceedings initiated by the Respondent no. 4 under the Saurashtra Gharkhed
Ordinance are time barred as the period of 8 years and 4 months has already lapsed. The Respondent no. 4, however, Page 5 of 12 C/SCA/7941/2013 ORDER vide order dated 20.10.2001 rejected the objections and further directed that the Petitioner be removed from all the survey no. 370/1 paiki, 370/2 paiki, 371, 372, 348 and 536 paiki as the same are agricultural lands and the provisions of the section 54 of the Saurasthra Gharkhed Ordinance is violated by the Petitioner.
9. It is submitted that being aggrieved against the said order dated 20.10.2001 passed by the Respondent no. 4, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal being no. 2/2001-2002 before the Respondent no. 3. The advocate for the Petitioner had presented written agruments on 18.12.2001 before the Respondent no. 3. The Petitioner craves leave to rely upon and refer to the same at the relevant time. It is submitted that the said appeal, however, vide order dated 16.1.2002 came to be rejected and the Respondent no. 3 confirmed the order passed by the Respondent no. 4.
10. It is submitted that being aggrieved against the said order passed by the Respondent no. 3, the Petitioner preferred revision application being Saurashtra Gharkhed Revision no. 103/2002 Page 6 of 12 C/SCA/7941/2013 ORDER before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 8.4.2002 passed an order to maintain status quo and accordingly the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal.
11. It is submitted that as per the order passed in Special Civil Application no. 14377 of 2003 by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, only the Special Secretary [Vivad] i.e. Respondent no. 2 shall have jurisdiction to entertain matters under the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance. Purusant to the aforesaid order the Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 26.7.2006 directed the Petitioner to present the Revision application before the appropriate forum.
12. It is submitted that accordingly, the Petitioner presented the aforesaid Revision application along with delay application before the Respondent no. 2. The delay application was allowed and further the revision application was taken on record and numbered as Revision application no. HKP/GHARKHED/SNR/1/2006.
13. It is submitted that the advocate for the Petitioner submitted written Page 7 of 12 C/SCA/7941/2013 ORDER arguments in the aforesaid revision on 29.10.2012. The Petitioner craves leave to refer to and rely upon the same at the relevant time."
4. It appears from the materials on record that the writ- applicant herein is a native of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is not in dispute that he is an agriculturist in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He purchased a parcel of agricultural land within the State of Gujarat in the year 1993. Thereafter a second parcel of land in the year 1994 and the last in 1998. It appears that with respect to the first transaction of the year 1993, a notice came to be issued by the Asst. Collector, Dhrangadhra under section 54 read with section 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949, calling upon the writ-applicant to show cause as to why the transaction should not be declared as a void transaction. The writ-applicant appeared before the Asst. Collector pursuant to the show cause notice and filed his reply. Thereafter, final order came to be passed dated 20.10.2001 by the Asst. Collector directing the writ-applicant to handover the possession of the land. The order passed by the Asst. Collector was challenged before the Collector, Surendranagar. However the appeal came to be dismissed. The order of the Collector Page 8 of 12 C/SCA/7941/2013 ORDER was challenged before the SSRD by filing a revision application. The revision application also came to be rejected.
5. Being dissatisfied with the orders passed by the revenue authorities, the writ-applicants are here before this Court with the present writ-application. It appears that the authorities relied upon a circular dated 04.04.1973 which provided that only a person residing within the State of Gujarat can purchase agricultural land provided he is otherwise an agriculturist. The circular stipulated that an agriculturist of any other State cannot purchase agricultural land within the State of Gujarat.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is, whether the revenue authorities committed any error in passing the impugned orders.
7. On 30.04.2013, this Court passed the following order:
"1. Heard Mr. Bhargav Karia, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. Issue notice returnable on 25th June, 2013. By way of ad-interim relief, the Page 9 of 12 C/SCA/7941/2013 ORDER order dated 20th October, 2001 passed by the Assistant Collector, Dhrangadhra (Annexure H to the petition) as well as the order dated 16th January, 2002 passed by the Collector and the impugned order dated 8th November, 2012 passed by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.MVV/GHRKH /SNR/1 /2006 confirming the same are hereby stayed.
Direct Service is permitted."
8. Mr. Rakesh Patel, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent - State submits that the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court is now subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2268 to 2298 of 2013.
9. On 17th March, 2015, the Supreme Court passed following order:
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The final hearing could not be concluded.
Let the matters be placed on the next date. In the meanwhile, the appellants shall not proceed with the matter under Section 122 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha region and Kutch) Area Act, Page 10 of 12 C/SCA/7941/2013 ORDER 1958.
It further goes without say that the parties shall maintain status quo.
We have heard Mr.R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants in the impleadment applications.
Mr.R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel is permitted to assist the Court and make written submissions."
10. The law has been settled as such by the Full Bench decision of this Court. The Supreme Court has not stayed the operation, implementation and execution of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court. The Supreme Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo.
11. In view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, the writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The reliefs prayed for in the petition are granted, subject to the final outcome of the Civil Appeals which are pending before the Supreme Court. The authorities are directed to act accordingly.
12. This petition is disposed of on the basis of the reference which came to be answered by the Larger Bench. However, if the authority concerned deems it necessary, then it shall be Page 11 of 12 C/SCA/7941/2013 ORDER open for it to examine the matter on its own facts. In case of any difficulty, it shall be open for the petitioner to come back to this Court.
13. Rule made absolute.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J) MAYA Page 12 of 12