Gujarat High Court
Ranabhai Kheraj Bhai vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 6 August, 2014
Author: G.B.Shah
Bench: G.B.Shah
C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9251 of 2003
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10665 of 2003
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3409 of 2003
With
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 162 of 2005
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9251 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
====================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see NO
the judgment?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the NO
judgment?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as NO
to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or
any order made thereunder?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge? NO
====================================
RANABHAI KHERAJ BHAI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
====================================
Page 1 of 27
C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT
Appearance:
MR DIPEN DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MAHETA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 2
MR DILIP B RANA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR PJ MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 4
====================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date : 06/08/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Since the issue involved in all these petitions is common, all the petitions have been heard together and decided by way of this common judgment and order.
2. By order dated 10/05/2005, the Misc. Civil Application No. 162 of 2005 was ordered to be heard along with Special Civil Application No. 9251 of 2003.
3. Heard Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners in these petitions. I have also heard learned advocate Mr. P. J. Mehta, learned advocate Mr. Dilip B. Rana and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Maheta, Page 2 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT appearing for the respective respondents in the present petitions. I have also heard the learned advocates for the parties in Misc. Civil Application No. 162 of 2005.
4. Present petitions have been preferred by the petitioners challenging the orders dated 24/02/2003 04/03/2003 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application Nos. 18 of 1990 and 19 of 1990, whereby, the order dated 11/07/1986 passed by the Collector, Jamnagar granting sale of the lands in question was quashed and set aside and the order dated 23/05/1990 was confirmed.
5. Before entering into the facts of the case it is pertinent to note that Special Civil Application No. 9251 of 2003 has been preferred by one Ranabhai Kherajbhai, who is the original purchaser of the land admeasuring 181 sq. mtrs. situated at Dwarka, owned by the Dwarka Nagar Panchayat. Special Civil Application No. 10665 of 2003 has been preferred by one Suresh N. Raichura, who is the original purchaser of the land admeasuring 464 sq. mtrs. situated at Dwarka, owned by the Dwarka Nagar Panchayat, whereas, Special Civil Application No. Page 3 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT 3409 of 2003 has been preferred by Debolina Aalif Ranjan Becharji and two others, who alleged to have purchased the aforesaid land admeasuring 464 sq. mtrs. from said Shri Suresh N. Raichura. In all these petitions, the aforesaid orders dated 04/03/2003 (24/02/2003) have been challenged. Misc. Civil Application No. 162 of 2005 in Special Civil Application No. 9251 of 2003 has been preferred by one Niranjan Jayantilal Thakar, who is the original applicant, praying for passing an appropriate order against the opponents therein for committing alleged breach of order dated 14/09/2004 passed by this Court in the captioned petitions, whereby status quo was directed to be maintained.
6. Brief facts, so far as Special Civil Application No. 9251 of 2003 is concerned, are that, by Resolution No. 11 dated 16/04/1986 (Annexure 'B', page No. 19 to the petition), Dwarka Nagar Panchayat, the respondent No. 3, decided to sell the land admeasuring 181 sq. mtrs., owned by them to one Ranabhai Kherajbhai, the petitioner. As per the said Resolution, earlier, by Resolution No. 104 dated 21/07/1984, the respondent No. 3 had allotted the said land to the petitioner on lease for a period Page 4 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT of 10 years for purpose of animal husbandry and thereafter, on an application being made by the petitioner for purchase of the said land, by the aforesaid Resolution dated 16/04/1986, the said land was decided to be sold to the petitioner. The said decision of Dwarka Nagar Panchayat was approved by the Collector, Jamnagar by order dated 11/07/1986 (Annexure 'C', page No. 20 to the petition). Accordingly, the price was fixed and in turn, the petitioner paid the sale consideration and a Registered Sale Deed was executed on 29/07/1986 in favour of the petitioner. The said transaction was challenged by one Niranjan Jayantilal Thakar, the respondent No. 4, by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 1429 of 1987, which came to be dismissed by order dated 10/08/1987 against which, Letters Patent Appeal No. 286 of 1987 was filed, which also came to be dismissed by order dated 03/04/1989, upholding the observations made in the order dated 10/08/1987 passed in the Special Civil Application No. 1429 of 1987 that there are disputed questions of law in the said petition, which cannot be decided in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Then, the respondent No. 4 approached the respondent No. 1 the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department on 03/07/1989. By order dated 23/05/1990, the Page 5 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT respondent No. 1 granted the application of the respondent No. 4, without hearing the petitioner, as alleged, and was pleased to quashed and set aside the order of the Collector, Jamnagar dated 11/07/1986. The petitioner, by application dated 01/11/1990, requested the respondent No. 1 to rehear the said application after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner also approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 7870 of 1990 challenging the aforesaid order dated 23/05/1990, and this Court, by order dated 17/06/2000, was pleased to dispose of the said petition remanding the matter to the respondent No. 1, setting aside his order dated 23/05/1990 and directing him to decide the application of the respondent No. 4 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The hearings before the respondent No. 1 were initially fixed on 24/08/2001 and thereafter on 13/11/2002 but the petitioner did not attend on those dates and asked to adjourn the hearings, by telegram. Ultimately, as the petitioner did not remain present, the respondent No. 1 decided to hear the said application on merits, on the basis of the documents supplied by respondent No. 4. Eventually, by the order impugned in the present petition dated 24/02/2003 04/03/2003, the respondent No. 1 allowed the revision Page 6 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT application No. 19 of 1990 of the respondent No. 4, setting aside the order dated 11/07/1986 passed by the Collector, Jamnagar which is giving rise to Special Civil Application No. 9251 of 2003.
6.1 So far as Special Civil Application No. 10665 of 2003 is concerned, the brief facts are that, by Resolution No. 11(4) dated 16/04/1986 (Annexure 'B', page No. 31 to the petition), Dwarka Nagar Panchayat, the respondent No. 4, decided to sell the land admeasuring 464 sq. mtrs., owned by them to one Sureshbhai N. Raichura, the petitioner, as was demanded by an application. The said decision of Dwarka Nagar Panchayat was approved by the Collector, Jamnagar by order dated 11/07/1986 (Annexure 'C', page No. 32 to the petition). Accordingly, the price was fixed and in turn, the petitioner paid the sale consideration and a Registered Sale Deed was executed in favour of the petitioner. The said transaction was challenged by one Niranjan Jayantilal Thakar, the respondent No. 2, by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 1429 of 1987, which came to be dismissed by order dated 10/08/1987 against which, Letters Patent Appeal No. 286 of 1987 was filed, which also Page 7 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT came to be dismissed by order dated 03/04/1989, upholding the observations made in the order dated 10/08/1987 passed in Special Civil Application No. 1429 of 1987 that there are disputed questions of law in the said petition, which cannot be decided in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Then, the respondent No. 2 approached the respondent No. 1 the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department on 07/07/1989. By order dated 26/10/1990 28/05/1991, the respondent No. 1 granted the application of the respondent No. 2, without hearing the petitioner, as alleged, and was pleased to quashed and set aside the order of the Collector, Jamnagar dated 11/07/1986. The petitioner also approached this Court by way of filing the Special Civil Application No. 5038 of 1991 challenging the aforesaid order dated 26/10/1990 28/05/1991, and this Court, by order dated 27/06/2000, was pleased to dispose of the said petition remanding the matter to the respondent No. 1, setting aside his order dated 28/05/1991, directing him to decide the application of the respondent No. 2 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 filed an application for impleading three persons as party respondent Nos. 5 to 7 on the ground that the petitioner herein had sold the Page 8 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT land in question to them by way of Registered Sale Deed dated 26/08/1996, pursuant to which, necessary entries had also been carried out by the respondent No. 4 Dwarka Nagar Panchayat and thereafter, the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 developed the said land. Eventually, by the order impugned herein dated 24/02/2003 04/03/2003 in Revision Application No. 18 of 1990, the respondent No. 1 allowed the said revision application of the respondent No. 2, setting aside the order dated 11/07/1986 passed by the Collector, Jamnagar, which is giving rise to Special Civil Application No. 10665 of 2003. 6.2 So far as Special Civil Application No. 3409 of 2003 is concerned, the same is filed by the newly added respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in Special Civil Application No. 10665 of 2003. It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased the land in question i.e. land admeasuring 464 sq. mtrs., earlier belonged to Dwarka Nagar Panchayat from one Suresh N. Raichura respondent No. 4 herein and petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 10665 of 2003, by way of registered Sale Deed dated 26/08/1996. The petitioners have preferred the present petition assailing the order dated 24/02/2003 04/03/2003 Page 9 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No. 18 of 1990, by which, the allotment of land in question to the original purchaser namely Suresh N. Raichura, from whom the present petitioners have purchased the said land, was cancelled, which may, as per the petitioners, affect them by way of dispossessing them from the said land and hence, Special Civil Application No. 3409 of 2003 is preferred. 6.3 The Misc. Civil Application No. 162 of 2005 has been preferred by the applicant - original respondent No. 4 against the original petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 9251 of 2003 i.e. Ranabhai Kherajbhai Savani, praying for passing an appropriate order against the opponent Nos. 1 and 4 therein for committing alleged breach of order dated 14/09/2004 passed by this Court in the captioned petitions, whereby status quo was directed to be maintained.
7. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate, representing the petitioners in all these petitioners has submitted as under:
7.1 So far as Special Civil Application No. 9251 of 2003 is concerned, Mr. Dipen Desai submitted that the petition itself is Page 10 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT not maintainable on the ground that the subject matter before the revisional authority was already decided by this Court by way of order passed in Special Civil Application No. 1429 of 1987, which was confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 286 of 1987. He further submitted that even otherwise, the revisional authority ought to have considered that the revision application preferred by Shri Niranjan Jayantilal Thakar (hereinafter referred to as 'the original applicant' for the sake of convenience) was not maintainable under the Gujarat Panchayats Act and hence, the impugned order is bad in law. He further submitted that the revisional authority ought to have appreciated that the application was filed after a very long period i.e. almost after three years and was barred by limitation. He further submitted that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner, committing the breach of the order dated 17/06/2000 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7870 of 1990 by which the revisional authority was directed to decide the issue after hearing the petitioner. He further submitted that the revisional authority has failed to appreciate the fact that the Collector, Jamnagar has exercised the powers under Section 98(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act by approving the Resolution passed by the Dwarka Nagar Panchayat. He Page 11 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT further submitted that in the year 1992, the Dwarka Nagar Panchayat was converted into Dwarka Nagar Palika and hence, the supervisory powers lie with the Director of Municipalities, Gujarat State and accordingly, the revisional authority has no jurisdiction to exercise the powers under the Gujarat Panchayats Act as well as under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. He further submitted that while passing the Resolution in favour of the petitioner, the original applicant was one of the members of the Gram Panchayat and he had agreed for the Resolution, which was then approved by the Collector and hence, it is not open for the original applicant to retract from the same. He further submitted that the petitioner is residing in the land in question since 1986 and breeding the animals. Moreover, the petitioner has spent substantial amount for development of the land in question. He further submitted that no case was made out to be dealt under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and hence, also the impugned order is required to be quashed. He further submitted that sale was effected in favour of the petitioner by executing the Sale Deed dated 29/07/1986, after necessary procedures to be followed and once the documentation is completed, the revisional authority ought not to have interfered with the same by passing the impugned order Page 12 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT affecting the rights of the petitioner.
7.2 So far as Special Civil Application No. 10665 of 2003 is concerned, Mr. Desai submitted besides what is stated in Para 7.1 herein above that the land in question was vested in the Dwarka Nagar Panchayat by right of ownership under the Vadodara Rajya and continued as such when areas comprised in the Vadodara Rajya merged into the then province of Bombay and on operation of constitution of the State of Bombay. He submitted that the land purchased by the petitioner from the then Nagar Panchayat after obtaining previous sanction of the Collector who was the competent authority under Section 98(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, ceased to be the property of the panchayat. The Dwarka Nagar Panchayat came to be constituted as municipality w.e.f. 01/06/1993, during the pendency of Special Civil Application No. 5038 of 1991, which came to be decided on 27/06/2000. He further submitted that the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1963 came into force from 15/04/1994, i.e. much after its conversion into municipality and hence, provisions of the said Act cannot be invoked and there being no corresponding provision under the Gujarat Page 13 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT Municipalities Act, 1963, the revisional proceedings pending before the State Government under Section 305 of the Repealed Act lapsed and hence, the order impugned herein, is null and void as being without authority and jurisdiction. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the written arguments submitted to the revisional authority and is a non speaking order.
7.3 So far as Special Civil Application No. 3409 of 2003 is concerned, Mr. Desai submitted that the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers of the land in question by getting executed the Registered Sale Deed. He submitted that the petitioners were never aware of any proceedings pending before the tribunal or the Court and it is only after the original applicant made the application to join them as party respondents that they knew about the proceedings. The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that if at all the original applicant wants any relief against the present petitioners then he has to move the Civil Court and as such, he has no locus on the issue involved in the matter. He further submitted that the Page 14 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT application for dropping the proceedings against them as well as reply filed by them, had not been considered by the revisional authority and the order impugned has been passed. He further submitted that it was contended before the tribunal that if application of the original applicant would be entertained, it will affect the present petitioners and therefore, an Undertaking was also filed to the effect that an order be passed that the undue profit earned by respondent No. 4 - Suresh N. Raichura, the original purchaser of the land in question, of Rs.2,41,800/ may be recovered from the respondent No. 4 and on his failing to pay, the same may be recovered from the petitioners, which was also not considered by the revisional authority. 7.4 Eventually, the learned advocate for the petitioners in respective petitions has submitted that for the aforesaid submissions, the present petitions may be allowed and the orders impugned herein may be quashed and set aside.
8. Per contra, Mr. P. J. Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original applicant seriously opposed the present petitions. So far as Special Civil Application Nos. 9251 of 2003 and 10665 of 2003 are concerned, he submitted that allotment Page 15 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT of the lands in question was in violation of the Government Resolution dated 17/09/1966, whereby, public auction and the reservation of plot for public purpose are prime and important factors. He further submitted that looking to the provisions of Section 110 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, being similar to Section 98 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, the competent authority is the District Development Authority and hence, the approval of sale by the Collector is without any power or jurisdiction and accordingly, the orders dated 11/07/1986 passed by the Collector, Jamnagar in favour of the respective petitioners, are void ab initio. He further submitted that the petitioners have committed the breach of the conditions imposed while allotment of the lands in question by constructing bungalows for their residence purpose. Moreover, the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 10665 of 2003 has sold the said land to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 3409 of 2003 by committing breach of the conditions for his profitable business. He further submitted that as regards the alleged breach, the original applicant had conveyed to the Chief Officer as well as the District Collector and the District Collector had, in turn, vide communication dated 11/11/2004 directed the Chief Officer to report as to the said breach of conditions Page 16 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT which was never complied with. He further submitted that the present petitions suffer from suppression of material facts. He submitted that on the various dates of hearing, the petitioners continuously remained absent, though they were in knowledge of the dates of hearing with oblique motive to prolong the issue and hence, there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice of nonhearing. He further submitted that so far as the orders passed in the writ petitions as well as the Letters Patent Appeals, filed against the said writ petitions, are concerned, they were not treated as the Public Interest Litigations but so far as the issue involved is concerned, the appropriate forum can always decide the same and hence, the orders passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department on merits, do not require any interference by this Court. He further submitted that the fact that original applicant though being a member while passing the Resolution of allotment of land, does not restrain him from challenging the order passed under the threat of powers, relationship and collusion.
8.1 So far as Special Civil Application No. 3409 of 2003 is Page 17 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT concerned, Mr. Mehta submitted that in violation of the condition of the original sale order, the original purchaser i.e. Suresh N. Raichura has sold the land in question to the present petitioners by way a Registered Sale Deed dated 26/08/1996. He further submitted that the present petitioners have ignored the principle of 'buyer beware' while getting executed the aforesaid Sale Deed in their favour. Further the learned advocate for the original applicant submitted that the petitioners can always resort to appropriate remedy available to them claiming damages against original purchaser i.e. Suresh N. Raichura by implementation of the well reasoned and legal impugned order but the present petition would be of no help to them.
8.2 So far as Misc. Civil Application No. 162 of 2005 is concerned, it is filed by the original applicant as referred herein above The learned advocate for the original applicant submitted that by order dated 14/09/2004 passed by this Court, parties were directed to maintain status quo qua the ownership and possession of the property in question, however, in breach of the order dated 14/09/2004, the opponent No. 1 in the present Page 18 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT Misc. Civil Application has started constructing the residential house for his own use on the land which was allotted for the purpose of animal husbandry. He submitted that as regards the alleged breach of the conditions stipulated while allotting the land in question of the aforesaid order dated 14/09/2004, the original applicant had also informed the Collector and the Chief Officer of the Dwarka Nagar Palika and the Collector, vide letter dated 11/11/2004, addressed to the Chief Officer, directed him to do the needful in the matter and to report him accordingly, however, till date, the direction of the Collector has not been complied with and no report has been filed. He accordingly submitted that the opponent No. 1 may be held liable for willful disobedience of the order of this Court as well as for breach of interim injunction under O. 39 R. 2(A) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
8.3 Last but not the least, the learned advocate for the original applicant submitted that since the orders impugned are the speaking orders appreciating all the aspects of the matters, they do not require any interference at the hands of the Court and hence, the present petitions require to be dismissed. Page 19 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT
9. Mr. D. B. Rana, learned advocate for the respondent - Dwarka Nagar Panchayat has submitted that the original applicant i.e. Niranjan Jayantilal Thakar was very much present in the meeting held on 16/04/1986 and in his presence the Resolutions were passed and hence, there is a bar of promissory estoppel. He invited attention of the Court to the orders dated 11/07/1986 passed by the Collector, Jamnagar by which he had approved the aforesaid Resolutions as to the decision of sale of the lands in question to the petitioners. The learned advocate for the Nagar Panchayat submitted that as per the order passed by this Court, the purchasers can always make construction after getting approval and hence, the construction, which is made, is valid and legal. He further invited attention of the Court to the Sale Deeds, which were executed after getting due approval. The learned advocate for the Nagar Panchayat further invited attention of the Court to the orders dated 23/05/1990 so also the order dated 26/10/1990 28/05/1991 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department. The learned advocate for the Nagar Panchayat then invited attention to the orders impugned in the present petitions and submitted Page 20 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT that they are not passed on merits and are required to be quashed and set aside. The learned advocate for the Nagar Panchayat invited attention of the Court to Section 98 of Gujarat Panchayats Act, as to the Powers of the Collector and submitted that the competent authority is the Collector and he has rightly passed the orders impugned herein.
10. Mr. Manan Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the earlier orders of the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, were quashed and set aside on the ground of not affording an opportunity of hearing.
11. It is jointly submitted by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties that another similar petition being Special Civil Application No. 853 of 1991 filed by Hotel Guru Prerana challenging a similar order dated 5th January 1991 passed by respondent No. 1 Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), in Revision Application No. SRD/JMN/JNR/17/90 was decided by Hon'ble Ms. Justice H. N. Devani vide oral judgment dated 29/09/2006.
12. I have gone through the same and it appears that the Coordinate Page 21 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT Bench of this Court, applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of New India Public School and Others Vs. HUDA and Others, (1996) 5 SCC 510, State of Kerala and Others Vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and Another, (1997) 5 SCC 432, M. I. Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu, 1999 (6) SCC 464 and M. C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, 2004 (6) SCC 588, has held that, "the resolution No.11(4) dated 16/04/1986 passed by the Dwarka Nagar Panchayat deciding to sell the subject lands to the petitioner therein being contrary to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 17th September 1966 was illegal and invalid". It was also held that, "since the Collector, Jamnagar, was unjustified in granting approval to the aforesaid resolution passed by the Dwarka Nagar Panchayat in exercise of powers under Section 98 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, order passed by the Collector, Jamnagar, was quashed and set aside and order passed by the revisional authority was confirmed and the said petition was rejected". It also appears that Letters Patent Appeal No. 1624 of 2006 in Special Civil Application No. 853 of 1991 filed against the said judgment is pending for final disposal. It is pertinent to note that when the Court concerned had decided Special Civil Application No. 853 of 1991 vide judgment dated Page 22 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT 29/09/2006, all the rest of the petitions and Misc. Civil Application i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 9251 of 2003, 10665 of 2003, 3409 of 2003 and Misc. Civil Application No. 162 of 2005 in Special Civil Application No. 9251 of 2003 are pending before this High Court. Except the petitioners and subject matters of lands, rest of the parties and advocates representing each party are same and similar. Even the resolution under challenge passed by the Dwarka Nagar Panchayat in exercise of powers under Section 98 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 and subsequent order passed by the Collector, Jamnagar, were also passed in the same meeting, on the same day and vide same resolution No. 11. In the proceedings filed prior to the decision under challenge, all were parties before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1429 of 1987 decided on 10/08/1987 against which, Letters Patent Appeal No. 286 of 1987 was filed, which also came to be dismissed by order dated 03/4/1989. In Special Civil Application No. 853 of 1991, which was decided earlier by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Harsha Devani, the order passed in Revision Application No. SRD/JMN/JNR/17/90 by Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) was under
challenge. In the proceedings on hand, the orders passed in Revision Application Nos. SRD/JMN/JNR/18/90 and Page 23 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT SRD/JMN/JNR/19/90 by Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) are under challenge. Under the above circumstances, it is the pious and moral duty of all concerned to have drawn attention of the Court concerned regarding the proceedings on hand, when the final hearing in Special Civil Application No. 853 of 1991 was commenced before Hon'ble Ms. Justice Harsha Devani for passing necessary order as to whether these proceedings on hand were required to be heard together with earlier petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 853 of 1991 or not as and when the final hearing would take place. This was a genuine expectation of this Court when the advocates are also same and similar in all the proceedings/petitions referred above, to save the precious time of all concerned. It appears to me that all the concerned advocates of the proceedings referred above, who are claiming to assist the Court, are more interested in prolonging the issue as far as possible. It is more surprising that from commencement of the hearing of the petitions on hand till the completion of their submissions, the learned advocates have not thought it fit to draw attention of this Court to the effect that Coordinate Bench of this Court had decided the issue while passing the order dated 29/09/2006 in Special Civil Application No. 853 of 1991. Under the above Page 24 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT circumstances, I am of the view that the petitions on hand may be disposed of on the same line and accordingly, I have once again carefully gone through the oral judgment dated 29/09/2006 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 853 of 1991 together with the papers of all these petitions and I am satisfied that the subject matters of lands were also related to resolution No. 11 dated 16/04/1986 passed by the Dwarka Nagar Panchayat giving unanimous approval by all the members present including Shri Niranjan Jayantilal Thakar to sell the lands mentioned in the said resolution. I do not find any special ground or reason not to accept the same. I am in full agreement with each finding and placing reliance on the case law having dealt with at length by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as referred above.
13. In view of the fact that similar petition involving identical issues raised in these petitions was rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide oral judgment dated 29/06/2006 passed in Special Civil Application No. 853 of 1991 and also in view of the fact that Letters Patent Appeal No. 1624 of 2006 in Special Civil Application No. 853 of 1991 filed against the said judgment has been referred to a Larger Bench and it is still pending, this Court Page 25 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT is of the opinion that all these three Special Civil Application Nos. 9251 of 2003, 10665 of 2003 and 3409 of 2003 are required to be decided on the same line.
14. Under the circumstances, it is hereby ordered that resolution No. 11 dated 16/04/1986 passed by the Dwarka Nagar Panchayat is contrary to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 17th September 1966 and hence, the same is illegal and invalid. Consequently, order passed by the Collector, Jamnagar, is quashed and set aside and orders dated 24/02/2003 04/03/2003 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application Nos. 19 of 1990 and 18 of 1990 are hereby confirmed. Special Civil Application Nos. 9251 of 2003, 10665 of 2003 and 3409 of 2003 are accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
15. Nothing substantial has been argued by the learned advocates for the parties as far as Misc. Civil Application No.162 of 2005 is concerned and hence, as the Special Civil Application No. 9251 of 2003 is dismissed, Misc. Civil Application No.162 of 2005 filed in the same petition, stands disposed of accordingly. Page 26 of 27 C/SCA/9251/2003 CAV JUDGMENT 15.2 Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment in each matter.
[ G. B. Shah, J. ] hiren Further order:
1. After pronouncement, Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate for the petitioners, requested to stay the implementation and operation of this judgment for a period of four weeks as they are desirous of challenging the same before the higher forum, to which, Mr. P. J. Mehta, learned advocate for respondent No. 4, objected.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to grant the request made by learned advocate for the petitioners and hence, it is rejected.
[ G. B. Shah, J. ] hiren Page 27 of 27