Gujarat High Court
Sonaben Naranbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 7 October, 2023
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17378 of 2016
==========================================================
SONABEN NARANBHAI PATEL & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 32 other(s) ========================================================== Appearance:
for the Petitioner(s) No. 2.1 MR VIRAL K SALOT(3500) for the Petitioner(s) No. 2,2.2,2.3 MR SHALIN MEHTA SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. DHRUVIN U MEHTA(9993) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 DECEASED LITIGANT for the Respondent(s) No. 25 MR ASHUTOSH DAVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Respondent(s) No. 20 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,22,23,24,25.1,25.2,25.3,25.4,26,27,28,29,3 0,31,32,4,5,6,7,8,9 SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 33 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 07/10/2023 CAV ORDER
1.Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Mr.Dhruvin Mehta for the petitioners, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi with learned advocate Mr.Amit Thakkar for the respondent no.20 and learned AGP Mr.Ashutosh Dave for respondent no.1 to
3. Though served non one appears for the other respondents.Page 1 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined
2.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the respondent no.3-Mamlatdar, Majura, District Surat as without jurisdiction.
3.The brief facts of the case are as under:
3.1. The petitioners are co-owners of the land bearing survey no.24 admeasuring 19600 square meters of village Rudh of taluka Majura District Surat (for short "the land in question").
3.2. The land in question was subject to Town Planning Scheme No.28 (Rudh-Vesu) and the survey no.24 was re-constituted as Final Plot No.34.
3.3. The respondent nos.4 to 18- private limited companies entered into transactions with other co-owners of the land and since they were not agriculturists within the meaning of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "the Act") proceedings under Section 84C of the Act were initiated. The State of Gujarat Page 2 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined issued a circular dated 23.11.1998 whereby it is directed that the permission cannot be granted under Section 63 of the Act for transferring the agricultural land to companies as they are not natural persons.
3.4. The said circular was challenged before this Court by respondent no.4-Prathmes Farms Pvt.
Ltd. by preferring Special Civil Application No.1491 of 1991, the said petition was allowed against which Letters Patent Appeal No.932 of 2000 was filed by the respondent State of Gujarat before the Division Bench of this Court. The Letters Patent Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench by order dated 31.08.2010 holding that the circular dated 23.11.1998 is in consonance with the provisions of the Act.
3.5. Thereafter the respondent no.2-Collector directed the respondent no.3-Mamlatdar to initiate proceedings against respondent no.4 to 18 who are Pvt. Ltd. Companies under Section 84C of the Act.
3.6. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Section 63AB was inserted by the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Laws Page 3 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined (Amendment), Act 2015 which provides that the Mamlatdar suo motu or upon application of any person interested in the land which is transferred in contravention of the provisions of Section 63 (1)(a),(b),(c) on or before 30.06.2015 and such land again was transferred in favour of an agriculturist on or before 30.06.2015 then the said transaction can be regularized by payment of premium at the rate of 10% of the prevailing Jantri rate to the State Government.
3.7. It appears that the respondent no.3- Mamlatdar by impugned order dated 18.05.2016, in view of the provision of the Section 63AB of the Act ordered to regularise the sale transaction in favour of the respondent no.20 who is an agriculturist and as a consequence ordered to withdraw the proceedings initiated under Section 84C of the Act as per the decision of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.932 of 2000 to the effect that the respondent no.4 to 18 Pvt. Ltd. Companies who are non-agriculturists and not natural persons and hence, cannot be said to be an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
Page 4 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined 3.8. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have preferred this petition challenging the order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the Mamlatdar. The petitioners have also contended that the Mamlatdar did not issue any notice to the petitioners before withdrawing the proceedings under Section 84C of the Act and therefore there is breach of the principles of natural justice. This Court considering the above aspect of the matter, issued the notice on 17.10.2016.
4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta for the petitioners submitted that the respondent no.3-Mamlatdar could not have passed the impugned order purportedly under Section 63AB of the Act contrary to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.932 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No.1491 of 1999. It was submitted that the petitioners have challenged the sale deed executed in favour of respondent no.4- Prathmes Farms Pvt. Ltd. which is not a natural person covered under the definition of agriculturist under Section 2(2) of the Act and therefore the Mamlatdar could not have allowed the application filed by the Page 5 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined respondent no.20 under Section 63AB of the Act, more particularly when during the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal the Division Bench directed the respondent Company i.e. Prathmes Farms Pvt. Ltd. that the respondent Company shall not enter into any transaction in contravention of the circular dated 23.11.1998. However, during the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, respondent nos.4 to 18 entered into transaction with respondent no.20 and thus the transaction on the basis of which the application was made is entered into in violation of the order passed by this Court.
4.1. It was therefore submitted that the Mamlatdar in collusion with the respondent nos.4 to 18 has passed the impugned order after he was transferred by notification dated 13.05.2016. It was therefore submitted that the impugned order passed by the Mamlatdar is without jurisdiction which requires to be quashed and set aside.
4.2. With regard to the maintainability of the petition challenging the order of the Mamlatdar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it was submitted that Page 6 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined the impugned order passed by the Mamlatdar is without jurisdiction, therefore, the petition is maintainable before this Court.
4.3. In support of his submissions learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta referred to and relied upon the decision in case of Navuji Lalji Vaghela and others Vs. State of Gujarat decided on 28.04.2011 in Letters Patent Appeal No.433 of 2011, more particularly paragraph nos.4 to 6 thereof which reads as under:
"4. We are of the view that the position of law is very clear. Firstly, to maintain a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, the party aggrieved must show that any of his fundamental rights or any other legal rights have been infringed and thereby the party is aggrieved by such infringement. Who can be said to be "a person aggrieved" ? One of the meanings is that "a person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision", if that decision is materially adverse to him. Normally, one is required to establish that one has been denied or deprived of something to which one is legally entitled in order to make one "a person aggrieved". Again a person is aggrieved, if a legal burden is imposed upon him.Page 7 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined Can it be said that the appellants would fall within the words "persons aggrieved" or "a person who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interest". On the contrary, this is an appeal by persons who are trying to take advantage of their own wrong. The maxim: "Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (No man can take advantage of his own wrong) is very much applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The maxim: "Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (No man can take advantage of his own wrong) is one of the salient tenets of equity. The appellants cannot secure the assistance of a court of law for enjoying the fruit of their own wrong.
5. We may refer the decision of the Supreme Court explaining this principle of law, in the matter of Union of India and others v/s. Major General Madan Lal Yadav [Retd.], reported in (1996)4 SCC
127. In paragraph 28, the Supreme Court observed as under:
"In this behalf, the maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria - meaning no man can take advantage of his own wrong - squarely stands in the way of Page 8 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined avoidance by the respondent and he is estopped to plead bar of limitation contained in Section 123(2). In Broom's Legal Maximum [10th Edn.] at page 191 it is stated:
"...it is a maxim of law, recognized and established, that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong; and this maxim, which is based on elementary principles, is fully recognized in courts of law and of equity, and, indeed, admits of illustration from every branch of legal procedure."
The reasonableness of the rule being manifest, we proceed at once to show its application by reference to decided cases. It was noted therein that a man shall not take advantage of his own wrong to gain the favourable interpretation of the law. In support thereof, the author has placed reliance on another maxim frustra legis auxilium invocat quaerit qui in legem committit. He relies on Perry v. Fitzhowe [(1846)8 Q.B. 757]. At page 192, it is stated that if a man be bound to appear on a certain day, and before that day the obligee puts him in prison, the Page 9 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined bond is void. At page 193, it is stated that "it is moreover a sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance he has occasioned". At page 195, it is further stated that "a wrong doer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong". At page 199 it is observed that "the rule applies to the extent of undoing the advantage gained where that can be done and not to the extent of taking away a right previously possessed."
6. We have been consistently noticing that many persons like the present appellants have started abusing the process of law and have started taking undue advantage of such proceedings, more particularly, in land matters. After entering into a transaction with eyes wide open, knowing fully well that the transaction is in breach of the provisions of the Tenancy Act and after pocketing huge amount when the transaction is declared invalid and subsequently if the purchaser succeeds, the original owner would come before the Court saying that the transaction be declared invalid. Such practice needs to be deprecated."
Page 10 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined 4.4. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ghanshyam Sarda Vs. Sashikant Jha, Director, M/s. J.K.Jute Mills Company Limited and Others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 599 to submit that the transaction between the respondent nos.4 to 18 and respondent no.19 is after the date of the interim order dated 27.11.2001 passed by this Court and therefore the respondents are guilty of transgressing or violating the order dated 27.11.2001, it was therefore submitted that when the transaction in favour of the respondent no.20 was in violation of the order dated 27.11.2001 passed by this Court, the Mamlatdar could not have passed an order under Section 63AB of the Act to regularize the transaction of the respondent nos.4 to 18 -Pvt. Ltd. Companies by charging the premium and withdrawing the proceedings under Section 84C of the Act. It was submitted the Hon'nle Apex Court has held as under:
"25. We now come to the crucial question as to the effect of transfer or alienation of Katihar property in violation of the Order of 08.05.2014.Page 11 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined The law on the point is well settled in the decision of this Court in D.D.A. v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd.[3] that legal consequences of what has been done in breach of or in violation of the order of stay or injunction can be undone and the parties could be put back to the same position as they stood immediately prior to such order of stay or injunction. Paragraphs 18 to 21 of the decision in D.D.A. v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) are quite instructive and are:-
"18. The above principle has been applied even in the case of violation of orders of injunction issued by civil courts. In Clarke v. Chadbur (1985)1 All ER 211 Sir Robert Megarry V-C observed:
"I need not cite authority for the proposition that it is of high importance that orders of the court should be obeyed. Wilful disobedience to an order of the court is punishable as a contempt of court, and I feel no Page 12 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined doubt that such disobedience may properly be described as being illegal. If by such disobedience the persons enjoined claim that they have validly effected some charge in the rights and liabilities of others, I cannot see why it should be said that although they are liable to penalties for contempt of court for doing what they did, nevertheless those acts were validly done. Of course, if an act is done, it is not undone merely by pointing out that it was done in breach of the law. If a meeting is held in breach of an injunction, it cannot be said that the meeting has not been held. But the legal consequences of what has been done in breach of the law may plainly be very much affected by the illegality. It seems to me on principle that those who defy a prohibition ought not to be able to claim that the fruits of their defiance are good, and not Page 13 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined tainted by the illegality that produced them."
19. To the same effect are the decisions of the Madras and Calcutta High Courts in Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S. Suppiah (AIR 1975 Mad270) and Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun (AIR 1986 Cal 220). In Century Flour Mills Ltd.(supra) it was held by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court that where an act is done in violation of an order of stay or injunction, it is the duty of the court, as a policy, to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrongdoing. The inherent power of the court, it was held, is not only available in such a case, but it is bound to exercise it to undo the wrong in the interest of justice. That was a case where a meeting was held contrary to an order of injunction. The Court refused to recognise that the holding of the meeting is a legal one. It put back the parties in the Page 14 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined same position as they stood immediately prior to the service of the interim order.
20. In Sujit Pal(supra) a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has taken the same view. There, the defendant forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff in violation of the order of injunction and took possession of the property. The Court directed the restoration of possession to the plaintiff with the aid of police.
The Court observed that no technicality can prevent the court from doing justice in exercise of its inherent powers. It held that the object of Rule 2-A of Order 39 will be fulfilled only where such mandatory direction is given for restoration of possession to the aggrieved party. This was necessary, it observed, to prevent the abuse of process of law.
21. There is no doubt that this salutary rule has to be applied and given effect to by this Court, if necessary, by overruling any procedural or other technical Page 15 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined objections. Article 129 is a constitutional power and when exercised in tandem with Article 142, all such objections should give way. The court must ensure full justice between the parties before it."
26. In the present case the Company and its Directors/servants were certainly guilty of transgressing or violating the Order of 08.05.2014 but as found hereinabove, the transferee and its Directors/servants have not violated the Order of 08.05.2014. The transferee and its Directors/servants were neither parties to the proceedings nor were they served with the Order of 08.05.2014. In para 38 of the judgment of this Court dated 13.11.2014, this Court had found the transfer in favour of the transferee to be questionable and had relegated the matter to the BIFR to consider the matter in the light of directions contained in said para 38. In the circumstances, no further orders are called for invalidating the registration dated 02.07.2014. Further, according to Page 16 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined the record the transferee had parted with full consideration way back on 04.04.2013. In the totality of these circumstances we do not think it appropriate to exercise our power to invalidate the effect of registration of the document on 02.07.2014."
5.On the other hand learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi appearing with learned advocate Mr.Amit Thakkar for the respondent no.20 raised the objection that the petition is not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner for challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent no.3-Mamlatdar directly before this Court. It was submitted that the order passed by the Mamlatdar is already a subject matter of challenge in Revision Application no.1 of 2018 which is pending before the Deputy Collector.
5.1. It was submitted that the petitioners have no locus to prefer this petition as the petitioner no.1-Sonaben Naranbhai Patel and predecessor of petitioner nos.2.1 to 2.3 have transferred their entire share in the subject land to the respondent nos.4 to 18 by a Page 17 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined registered sale deed dated 03.08.2001. It was therefore submitted that the petitioners having sold the land and having pocketed the money way back in the year 2001 have no locus to prefer this petition and only on this ground the petition is required to be dismissed.
5.2. It was submitted that the respondent nos.4 to 18 purchased the remaining portion of the subject land of old survey no.50 paiki admeasuring 9713.50 square meters from the heirs of Thakorbhai and Jamubhai by way of a registered sale deed no.5014 dated 03.08.2001 and accordingly the respondent nos.4 to 18 became the owners of survey no.24.
5.3. It was submitted that the petitioners have concealed the material fact that they have executed the registered sale deed of the subject land in favour of the respondent nos.4 to 18 way back in the year 2001 and the said fact is relevant and material for considering the various decision of this Court holding that a vendor who has pocketed money has no legal right to allege that the transaction to which he was a party is in contravention of the provisions of the law Page 18 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined and that he cannot take the advantage of the same.
5.4. It was submitted as per the language of Section 63AB of the Act, the petitioners are not necessary and proper party and the application can be decided even in absence of the petitioners in view of Sub Section (1) of Section 63AB of the Act which provides for issuance of notice to the person in whose favour the last transaction was made before 30.06.2015, if such person is an agriculturist.
5.5. It was therefore submitted that opportunity of being heard is to be provided to such person who has entered into the last transaction prior to 30.06.2015 and who is an agriculturist. It was therefore submitted that the petitioners would not have any locus and the petition is required to be dismissed on this ground only.
5.6. It was submitted that considering the language of Section 63AB of the Act if the person in whose favour the last transaction was made on or before 30.06.2015 is an agriculturist, then, such person is entitled to the benefit under Section 63AB of the Act.
Page 19 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined It was therefore pointed out that the sale transaction has taken place in favour of the respondent no.20 by registered sale deed dated 04.08.2006 and the sale deed is given new registration number after payment of deficit stamp duty on 20.05.2015 and as the respondent no.20 is an agriculturist, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 63AB of the Act and therefore there is no illegality as alleged, committed by passing the impugned order by the respondent no.3 invoking the provision of Section 63AB of the Act and withdrawing the proceedings under Section 84C of the Act. In view of the regularization of the transaction after payment of 10% of prevailing Jantri rate of the land in question is ordered to be regularised.
5.7. It was also pointed out by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Joshi from the documents placed on record along with the affidavit-in-reply that no injunction was granted in favour of the petitioners by the Civil Court in the Special Civil Suit No.276 of 2007 (new Regular Civil Suit No.173 of 2015) and therefore the petitioner would not have any right and or locus to seek injunction against the respondents.
Page 20 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined 5.8. With regard to the issue of transfer of the respondent no.3 by notification dated 13.05.2016 is concerned, it was submitted that as per the information received in Right To Information Act, 2005 subsequent to the notification dated 13.05.2016, the respondent no.3-Mamlatdar left the charge on 18.05.2016 after office hours. It was therefore submitted that till 18.05.2016 the respondent no.3-Shri M.R.Vasava was having the charge of Mamlatdar Majura and therefore it cannot be said that the impugned order is passed by the Officer who was not having the charge and therefore without jurisdiction.
5.9. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Joshi referred to and relied upon the following decisions:
(i) The Decision of this Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Nandubhai Mahasukhbhai Patel reported in 2020 (2) GLR 866, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that as per the provisions of Section 63AB of the Act, purpose of the phrase "who is not agriculturist" includes the juristic Page 21 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined person like Co-opertaive Society, Company etc. and the individual who is not personally cultivating the land which will resultantly convey the meaning to the word "person" used in first part of Section 63AB of the Act to include the juristic person. It was therefore submitted that the Mamlatdar has rightly invoked the provisions of Section 63AB of the Act in favour of respondent no.20 who is an agriculturist having purchased the land in question which was originally purchased by the respondent nos.4 to 18 Pvt. Ltd.
Companies who are juristic persons.
(ii) Reliance was also placed on the case of Shashikant Vasudevbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2019 (1) GLR 747, wherein learned Single Judge of this Court has directed the Collector to decide the applications of the petitioners in whose favour the transfer of the agricultural land was validated under Section 63AB of the Act though earlier transfer was in breach of Clause
(a),(b),(c) of Section 63(1) of the Act Page 22 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined and the administrative instruction of the State Government to the effect that "person" in Section 63AB of the Act is a natural person and it does not include juristic person was quashed.
5.10. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Joshi submitted that the decision of the Division Bench in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Nandubhai Mahasukhbhai Patel (Supra) was not interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as Special Leave to Appeal Nos.8981 to 8986 of 2020 were dismissed by the order dated 05.02.2021.
5.11. It was therefore submitted that even on merits, the impugned order passed by the Mamlatdar is in consonance with the provisions of Section 63AB of the Act.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the submissions made, with regard to the impugned order passed by the Mamlatdar under Section 63AB of the Act challenged in this petition, it is pertinent to note that there is an Page 23 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined alternative efficacious remedy available with the petitioners to prefer an appeal before the Deputy Collector and in fact, such appeal is already preferred by the petitioners in the year 2018. The respondent no.20 has placed on record a copy of the notice of hearing issued by the Deputy Collector in the said appeal.
7. The other issue which arises for consideration is whether the impugned order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the respondent no.3-Mamlatdar is without jurisdiction so as to enable the petitioners to challenge the same under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court or not.
8. The respondent no.3-Mamlatdar has passed the order dated 18.05.2016 under Section 63AB of the Act and operative part reads as under:
"ORDER:-
The transaction vide registered sale deed no.11243, dated 04/08/06 (new no.625, dated 20/05/15) for the land vide Survey no.24, moje Rundh, taluka- Majura, District-Surat, ad-measuring 19600 sq.m. (T.P.scheme no.28 (Rundh- Vesu) F.P. no.34, ad-measuring 12740 Page 24 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined sq.m.), which stands in the names of occupiers- Valiben Naranbhai and others, made in favor of Mr. Kanaiyalal Karamshibhai Patel is authorized subject to the below mentioned conditions. It is hereby ordered to record his name as occupier and it is hereby ordered to quash the proceeding as per section-84C of the Tenancy Act, if any.
CONDITIONS:-
(1) If question arises in future for the payment of 10 % amount according to the area mentioned at village form no.7/12 for the land in question, then the difference amount shall have to be paid.
(2) If there is increase in area in future under the T.P. scheme, then 10% amount as per the Jantri at that time on the additional area shall have to be paid."
9.Therefore another question arises as to whether the respondent nos.4 to 18 who have executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent no.20 prior to 30.06.2015 can be regularized on payment of 10% of the jantri rate prevailing at the relevant time as the respondent no.20 is an agriculturist.
10. Admittedly in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Page 25 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined Appeal No.932 of 2000, the transaction in favour of the respondent nos.4 to 18 is not a valid transaction as the same is in violation of the provision of Section 63(1)(a),(b),(c) of the Act which reads as under:
"Sec.63 Transfers to non-agriculturist barred.
(1) Save as provided in this Act-,
(a) no sale (including sales in execution of a decree of a Civil Court or for sums recoverable as arrears of land revenue), gift, exchange or lease of any land or interest therein, or
(b) no mortgage of any land or interest therein, in which the possession of the mortgaged property is delivered to the mortgagee, or
(c) no agreement made by an instrument in writing for the sale, gift, exchange, lease or mortgage of any land or interest therein.
shall be valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist or who being an agriculturist cultivates personally land not less than the ceiling area whether as an owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant or who is not an agricultural labourer.
Page 26 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined Provided that the Collector or an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf may grant permission for such sale, gift, exchange, lease or mortgage, or for such agreement on such conditions as may be prescribed, Provided further that no such permission shall be granted, where land is being sold to a person who is not an agriculturist for agricultural purpose, if the annual income of such person from other sources exceeds five thousand rupees"
11. The Hon'ble Division Bench while considering the issue as to whether the Private Limited Companies can be said to be agriculturist as defined under Section 2(2) of the Act, upheld the circular dated 23.11.1998 whereby the instructions were issued by the State Government to all the Collectors to hold that permission cannot be granted under the Act for transferring the agricultural lands to Companies as they were not natural persons has held as under:
"8. In view of the express legal provisions of the Act enacted with the express objects, inter alia, of Page 27 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined regulating and imposing restrictions on transfer of agricultural lands could hardly accommodate a juristic person or a company as an "agriculturist". According to the clear definitions, a legal person cannot cultivate land personally by its own labour or under personal supervision of itself or its family members. Therefore, the word "person"
defined in section 2 (11) to include a joint family, cannot be allowed an expansive interpretation so as to include a legal person in the context of the provisions of section 63 of the Act.
9. As against the above reading of the relevant legal provisions in the impugned circular, learned single Judge appeared to have unnecessarily strayed into reference to the provisions of the Bombay General Clauses Act 1904, the Gujarat Co- operative Societies Act 1961 and the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960.
xxxx 12.1 When material words are capable of bearing two or more constructions, the most firmly established rule for construction is the rule laid down in Heydon's case, which is also known as "purposive construction" or "mischief Page 28 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined rule". Court is required to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy, and suppress certain inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief, and pro privato commodo, and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono publico, as discussed in several judgments of the Apex Court, including Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar [AIR 1955 SC 661] and Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. [AIR 2004 SC 355]. In the words of Lord Griffith: "The courts now adopt a purposive approach which seeks to give effect to the true purpose of legislation and are prepared to look at much extraneous material that bears on the background against which the legislation was enacted". [Pepper v. Hart (1993) 1 All ER 42].
13. In view of the above discussion of the relevant legal provisions and the ratio of the judgments of the Apex Court, it is clear that the impugned circular dated 23.11.1998 was in consonance with the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and the notices issued on the basis of that circular could not be quashed as the authorities were Page 29 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined entitled and required to initiate proceeding under section 84-C of the Act, even without reference to and reliance upon the impugned circular. In that view of the matter, whether the impugned circular could have retrospective effect or not becomes irrelevant as the law as interpreted by the Court must take its own effect and must be implemented accordingly regardless of any particular interpretation put upon it by the implementing agencies or the date on which such administrative interpretation is handed out for necessary actions in accordance with the Act."
12. In view of the decision of the Division Bench proceedings were initiated under Section 84C of the Act for disposal of the land as the transfer was held to be invalid in favour of the respondent nos.4 to 18 Companies. During the pendency of such proceedings under Section 84C of the Act, the Mamlatdar invoked Section 63AB of the Act on an application being made by the respondent no.20 to be joined as third party in the proceedings of Section 84C of the Act as he purchased the land by registered sale deed no.11243 dated 04.08.2006 showing readiness and willingness to pay the 10% of the jantri Page 30 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined rate as per Section 63AB of the Act, the respondent no.3-Mamlatdar considered the said application and held that as respondent no.20 is an agriculturist, his application is required to be considered under Section 63AB(1) of the Act and accordingly directed the respondent no.20 and withdrew the proceedings under Section 84C of the Act.
13. The impugned order is therefore in consonance of the following decisions
(i) The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Shashikant Vasudevbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra) it was held as under:
"14. In the case of Prathmesh Farma Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Court considered the definition of 'person' as given in the Act while examining the challenge made to the circular dated 23.11.1998 in context of Section 63 of the Act. By circular dated 23.11.1998, instructions were issued to all the Collectors to hold that the permission cannot be granted under the Act for transferring the agricultural lands to companies as they are not natural persons. The circular dated 23.11.1998 was issued as the Page 31 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined Government noticed that the private companies purchased the agricultural lands for agricultural use after obtaining permission under Section 63 of the Act and having regard to the provisions of Section 63 prohibiting the transfer of the agricultural land to non-agriculturist, the Government banned purchase of the agricultural lands by the companies and issued instructions to the Collectors to take action accordingly.
15. Section 63 of the Act bars transfer of agricultural lands to the person who is not an agriculturist. The word 'agriculturist' is defined in sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act, which means that a person who cultivates land personally is the agriculturist. The phrase 'to cultivate personally' is also defined in sub-section (6) of Section 2 of the Act, which reads as under:
"to cultivate personally" means to cultivate land on one's own account-
(i) by one's own labour, or
(ii) by the labour of any member of one's family, or
(iii) under the personal supervision of oneself or any member of one's family, by hired labour or by servants Page 32 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share.
In the context of definition of 'agriculturist' in sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act, the Court, in Prathmesh Farma Pvt. Ltd. (supra), read and construed the meaning of the word 'person' used in Section 63 not to include the company as the company would not fall within the meaning of phrase "to cultivate personally" given in sub-section (6) of Section 2 of the Act. In para-8 of its judgment, as reproduced above, the Court has observed that the word 'person' defined in sub-section (11) of Section 2 of the Act cannot be allowed an expansive interpretation so as to include a legal person in the context of the provisions of Section 63 of the Act. Thus, the word 'person' was interpreted and construed in the context of Section 63 of the Act.
16. The definition of 'person' is inclusive definition and therefore, its meaning could be enlarged in the context in which it is used. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramanlal Bhailal Patel (supra), ordinary and popular meaning of the word 'person' is specific individual human being, but in law, it has slightly different meaning and unless otherwise intended, it not only refers Page 33 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined to natural person but also legal person, i.e. the entity capable of having rights and duties and as further held, the inclusive definition of 'person' given in General Clauses Act applies to all Gujarat Acts as per which the definition of 'person' includes the natural human being and the legal entity capable of possessing rights and duties, including the companies and association of persons.
17. It appears that the legislature in its wisdom has given inclusive definition of 'person' in the Act, as the word 'person' is used in different provisions in the Act in the context of such provisions and it is thus left to be understood in the context in which it is used in different provisions of the Act.
18. In Section 63 of the Act, the word 'person' is qualified by further words 'who is not an agriculturist'. By use of such phrase, the legislature appears to have conveyed that for the purpose of section 63 of the Act, the meaning of 'person' is to be derived from the meaning of the word 'agriculturist' given in its definition, which would not include the company or any legal entity and even the individual who does not cultivate land personally. It was thus Page 34 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined in the scheme of section 63 of the Act, the word 'person' was construed in Prathmesh Farma Pvt. Ltd. (supra) not to include the Company.
19. The word 'person' is used at two places in the first part of subsection (1) of Section 63AB of the Act. The word 'person' used in the first part of sub-section (1) of Section 63AB is also qualified and followed by similar phrase 'who is not an agriculturist' but such word precedes the sentence/words "where the Mamlatdar suo moto or on the application of any person interested in the land, has reason to believe that, in the breach of the provisions of clause (a), (b) or (c) or sub-section (1) of section 63, transfer of the land had taken place in favour of a". The Company or any legal/juristic person which is not the agriculturist for the purpose of the Act or the individual human being who is not the agriculturist, since not personally cultivating the land, any transfer of the land in favour of the Company or the individual human being not personally cultivating the land is in breach of clause (a), (b),
(c) of section 63 of the Act.
Therefore, for the purpose of section 63AB, the phrase 'who is not agriculturist' includes the juristic person like Company etc. and the Page 35 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined individual, who is not personally cultivating the land, which will resultantly convey the meaning to the word 'person' used in first part of section 63AB of the Act to include juristic person. The legislature appears to have intended that after invalid transaction in favour of the person who is not an agriculturist, certain transaction or transactions have taken place and the person in whose favour the last transaction was made on or before the 30th June, 2015, is an agriculturist, such last transaction could be held valid on Mamlatdar satisfying himself that the last transaction was in favour of a person who is the agriculturist.
20. The context is what precedes and follows a word or passage as throwing light on its meaning. Therefore, in what context the word 'person' is used in any provision of any Act, if to be understood, it cannot be read in isolation, when the definition of word 'person' is inclusive. It appears that the word 'person' appears in first part and in second part of sub-section (1) of Section 63AB is used in different context. The sentence/words and the phrase appearing preceding to and following the word 'person' in first part of sub-section (1) of Section 63AB are to give effect to the Page 36 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined intention of the legislature and therefore in that context the word `person` is to be construed and understood.
21. The statement of objects and reasons for inserting section 63AB in the Act reads thus: "It is also necessary to insert a provision to protect the interests of an agriculturist who is at present as such despite the fact that earlier transaction or transactions in respect of the concerned land was or were invalid." The legislature appears to have intended to validate the last transaction made on or before 30.6.2015, if in favour of the agriculturist, for the land in respect of which the earlier transaction was in breach of clause (a), (b), (c) of Section 63 of the Act and such intention could well be gathered from the word 'person' used in second part of sub-section (1) of Section 63AB with the phrase 'is an agriculturist'. Through the statement of objects and reasons, the legislature has made it clear that it intended to protect the interest of the agriculturist despite the fact that earlier transaction or the transactions in respect of the concerned land was or were invalid. There is no qualification provided in the statement of objects and reasons that only those invalid transactions Page 37 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined for the lands which were in favour of natural persons shall be validated, if the last transactions before 30.06.2015 are in favour of the agriculturists. Therefore, invalid transaction or the transactions referred in statement of objects and reasons would include the transaction or the transactions in favour of juristic person. The impugned instructions have attempted to supplement the statement of objects and reasons and thereby have defied the legislative intention behind framing section 63AB of the Act. Therefore, the court is of the view that the word 'person' used in first part of Section 63AB of the Act includes juristic person like Company etc. and the restricted meaning sought to be given to word 'person' by impugned instructions is contrary to the intention of the legislature behind enacting Section 63AB of the Act."
(ii) In case of State of Gujarat Vs. Nandubhai Mahasukhbhai Patel (Supra) held as under:
"19. On carefully reading of aforesaid Section 63AB, it is crystal clear that the word "Person" is used at two places in the first part of sub-section (1) of Section 63AB of the Act and this is also qualified and followed by similar phrase Page 38 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined "who is not an agriculturist" but such order precedes the sentence / words "where the Mamlatdar suo moto or on the application of any person interested in the land, has reason to believe that in the breach of the provisions of clause
(a), (b) and (c) or subsection (1) of Section 63, transfer of the land had taken place in favour of a company or any legal / juristic person which is not the agriculturist for the purpose of the Act or the individual human being who is not the agriculturist, since not personally cultivating the land, any transfer of the land in favour of the Company or the individual human being not personally cultivating the land is in breach of clause (a), (b) and (c) of Section 63 of the Act. As such, for the purpose of Section 63AB, the phrase "who is not agriculturist" includes the juristic person like company etc. and the individual, who is not personally cultivating the land, which will resultantly convey the meaning to the word "Person" used in first part of Section 63AB of the Act to include juristic person. It appears that the intention of the legislature appears to be that after invalid transaction in favour of the person who is not an agriculturist, certain transaction or transactions have taken place and the person in whose favour the last transaction was made on or before 30.06.2015 is an agriculturist, such Page 39 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined last transaction could be held valid on Mamlatdar satisfying himself that the last transaction was in favour of a person who is the agriculturist.
20. It also appears that the word "Person" appears in the first part of sub-section (1) of Section 63AB is in different context. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to refer to the statement of objects and reasons. Section 63AB in the Act reads as under:-
"It is also necessary to insert a provision to protect the interests of an agriculturist who is at present as such despite the fact that earlier transaction or transactions in respect of the concerned and was or were invalid.
21. It appears that the intention of the legislature is to validate the last transaction made on or before 30.06.2015, if in favour of the agriculturist, for the land in respect of which the earlier transaction was in breach of clause (a), (b) and (c) of Section 63 of the Act and such intention could well be gathered from the word "Person" used in second part of subsection (1) of Section 63AB with the phrase 'is an agriculturist'. There is Page 40 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined no qualification provided in the statement of objects and reasons that only those invalid transactions for the lands which were in favour of natural persons shall be validated, if the last transactions before 30.06.2015 are in favour of the agriculturists. As such, invalid transaction or the transactions referred to in statement of objects and reasons would include the transaction or the transactions in favour of juristic person.
24. Now, admittedly, by impugned administrative instructions, the authority attempted to supplement the statement of objects and reasons and thereby have tried to nullify the legislative intention for framing Section 63AB of the Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the word "Person" used in first part of Section 63AB of the Act includes juristic person like Company etc., and the restricted meaning sought to be given to word "Person" by impugned instructions is contrary to the intention of the legislature for enacting Section 63AB of the Act. The impugned administrative instructions are contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 63AB of the act and cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law."
The above decision also stands confirmed Page 41 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave To Appeal No.8981 to 8986 of 2020.
14. In view of the above legal position, while interpreting Section 63AB of the Act, the transaction entered into by the juristic person is also covered if the last transaction in favour of the natural person who is an agriculturist is entered into prior to 30.06.2015.
15. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the Mamlatdar has passed the impugned order dated 18.05.2016 without jurisdiction as the respondent no.20 in whose favour the sale deed is executed is an agriculturist.
16. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners have executed the sale deed on 03.08.2001 for the part of the land in question in favour of the respondent nos.4 to 18 prior to the order passed by the Division Bench on 27.11.2001 in Civil Application No.8871 of 2000 in Letters Patent Appeal No.932 of 2000, wherein the Division Bench has observed as under:
Page 42 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined "1. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides on the question of interim relief. During the arguments, a consensus has been arrived at, on the basis of which, we direct that there shall be interim stay of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge only in so far as it sets aside the circular dated 23rd November 1998. It is further directed, on the basis of the consensus, that the respondent company shall not enter into any transaction in contravention of the circular dated 23rd November 1998. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no orders as to costs."
17. In view of the above facts emerging from the record, it is apparent that the petitioners have sold the land prior to the order passed by the Division Bench and the said sale deed was kept pending with the Office of the Sub-Registrar and was released only in the year 2006, when the respondent nos.4 to 18 executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent no.20 on 04.08.2006. In the Civil Suit no.276 of 2007 (New number Regular Civil Suit No.173 of 2015) filed by the petitioners for cancellation of both the sale deeds, no interim injunction was passed by the Civil Court in favour of the petitioners.Page 43 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined
18. With regard to the contention of the petitioner with regard to the issuance of the impugned order on 18.05.2016 inspite of the fact that the respondent no.3 was transferred on 13.05.2016, the respondent no.20 has placed on record the information received under the RTI Act to point out that the respondent no.3 continued as Mamlatdar, Majura, Surat City up to the Office Hours of 18.05.2016. The contention of the petitioners that though respondent was transferred could not have signed the order dated 18.05.2016 is contrary to the records.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion and the facts emerging from the record, admittedly the sale deed was executed by the petitioners prior to the order passed by the Division Bench on 27.11.2001 and there was no prohibition for the respondent nos.4 to 18 to execute the sale deed in favour of the agriculturist as per the resolution dated 23.11.1998. Therefore, as per provision of Section 63AB of the Act as the respondent no.20 who is an agriculturist made an application before the Mamlatdar with readiness and willingness to pay 10% of the Page 44 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined jantri rate prevailing at the relevant time, as he was the last purchaser of the land in question and hence the Mamlatdar has rightly invoked the provision of Section 63AB of the Act to permit the respondent no.20 to pay the 10% of the jantri rate and the respondent no.20 has paid the amount of Rs.1,52,88,000/- on 17.03.2016 being 10% of the jantri rate for 19600 square meters of survey no.24, town planning scheme no.28, final plot no.34 admeasuring 12740 square meters on 21.04.2016 and the copy of the challan is also placed on record at annexure R-4 at page 103 along with the affidavit-in-reply by the respondent no.20. Thus the respondent no.20 has approached the Mamlatdar after making payment as required under Section 63AB of the Act and therefore the Mamlatdar has permitted the transactions in favour of the respondent no.20 to be regularized. As the transaction is regularized as per Subsection 2 of Section 63AB of the Act, the proceedings under Section 84C of the Act have been rightly withdrawn by the Mamlatdar.
20. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 84C could not have been converted into Page 45 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17378/2016 CAV ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined proceedings of Section 63AB of the Act is also without any basis as the Mamlatdar has taken the cognizance of the last transaction in favour of the respondent no.20 who is an agriculturist under Section 63AB of the Act, in view of the application made by the respondent no.20 to be joined as necessary party after making payment as required under Section 63AB of the Act of the 10% of the jantri rate. Therefore the Mamlatdar is required to terminate the proceedings initiated under Section 84C of the Act as the transaction stands regularized.
21. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition deserved to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) URIL RANA Page 46 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:47:52 IST 2023