Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Heard Ms. Megha Jani learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr Malkan & Naynesh Gondkar learned advocates for Ms. Khushboo V Maklan and Dharita P. Malkan for respondent no. 17, Mr. Rasesh Sanjanwala learned senior counsel with Mr. Parthiv B. Shah learned advocate for respondents no. 5 and 10 and Mr. AJ Patel learned advocate for respondents no. 6, 8 and 9.

10. On the other hand, Mr. RS Sanjanwala learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. Parthiv B. Shah learned advocate for respondents no. 5 and 10 and submitted that the sale-deed was not executed, and therefore, a suit for specific performance was filed in the year 1993 being Civil Suit No. 641/1993. The parties negotiated the matter and settlement was arrived because of which, a fresh power of attorney was executed on 19.10.1993 which also gave a rise before the consent terms are recorded. Mr. Sanjanwal further submitted that by way of compromise, the respondents no. 5 to 10 have paid Rs. 3 crores by cheque and over HC-NIC Page 15 of 31 Created On Tue Mar 01 01:10:28 IST 2016 and above the said amount, number of times consideration has been received by the petitioner and his family members. In spite of the same, only with a view to extort more money from the private respondents, the petition is filed by the petitioner. Mr. Sanjanwala learned senior counsel further submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that after taking advantage of his own action, no person can be permitted to plead that the transaction, is in breach of statutory provisions of the Act, after pocketing the money and having executed the sale deed. In the present case also, the petitioner and his family members have executed the sale deed through power of attorney holder in the year 1999. Thereafter, a compromise came to be executed in the year 2007. If the said compromise is perused, it is admitted fact that number of documents are executed in the year 2007. If the said compromise is perused, it is admitted fact that number of documents are executed by the petitioner and his family members and all the parties to the proceedings have executed separate declarations, power of attorney and possession receipt in favour of the purchaser i.e. respondent no. 5 to 10. Mr. Sanjanwala further submitted that the said declarations and possessions receipts are not under challenge before any competent authority or civil court. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the signatures of the petitioner and his family HC-NIC Page 16 of 31 Created On Tue Mar 01 01:10:28 IST 2016 members were obtained by fraud. Mr. Sanjanwala learned counsel further submitted that being aggrieved by the said order of Civil Court in not recording the compromise in the civil suit, in view of the same being a new tenure property and it being hit by sec. 23 of the Contract Act, the purchasers of the property filed Special Civil Application No. 9400/2009 and allied matters before this Court and this Court vide order dated 28.4.2011 has rejected the plea of the purchasers. Mr. Sanjanwala submitted that against order dated 28.4.2011, the purchasers filed SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 13.9.2013 was pleased to list the matter for final hearing on 12.11.2013 and since then, the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is pertinent to note here that immediately after purchasing the property, the present respondents applied for mutation of Entry in the record of rights and the competent authority had mutated Entry No. 13453 in the revenue record on 16.10.1999. He further submitted that being aggrieved by the same, the present petitioner and his family members preferred RTS Appeal before the Deputy Collector and the Deputy Collector vide order dated 16.4.2002 rejected the said appeal. That being aggrieved by the said order dated 16.4.2002, the petitioner and his family members preferred Revision Application No. RA/35/2002 before the District Collector, and the District Collector HC-NIC Page 17 of 31 Created On Tue Mar 01 01:10:28 IST 2016 vide order dated 24.6.2003 rejected the said revision application and confirmed the order of Deputy Collector, against which, the petitioner and his family members preferred revision application before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department being Revision Application No. 47/2003, which was also rejected vide order dated 5.10.2013. Against the said order dated 5.10.2013, the petitioner has filed SCA No. 16102/2013 before this Court, which is pending adjudication before this court. In the said petition, this Court has issued notice and granted stay, against which, one of the purchaser has preferred LPA No. 1315/2013 and the Division Bench of this Court has admitted the said LPA and issued Rule and granted ad interim relief in Civil Application No. 11747/2013 preferred along with the LPA. Mr. Sanjanwala learned senior counsel has further submitted that looking to over all facts and circumstances, after pocketing the money, only one family member is continuously contesting the litigation and all other family members have chosen to support the present petitioner. Mr. Sanjanwala further submitted that after pocketing the amount after signing the consent deeds before the Civil Court, though the present respondents paid twice the consideration, even as on this date, the present respondents are not in a position to enjoy the fruits of the sale deed executed in the year 1999 in their favour. It is submitted that when the HC-NIC Page 18 of 31 Created On Tue Mar 01 01:10:28 IST 2016 property was purchased by the present respondents, the said property was declared as retainable land in view of order passed by the Mamlatdar & Krushi Panch in Tenancy Case No. 62/1994. After the sale seed was executed on 14.10.1999, the Dy. Collector on 26.6.2000 declared the property as a restricted tenure property under sec. 43 of the Tenancy Act. Thus, before the Competent Authority whose order is under challenge, the present respondents shown their readiness and willingness to pay the conversion tax as may be determined. Mr. Sanjanwala further submitted that when the sale deed was executed, the present respondents did not had any knowledge that the proceedings of Dy. Collector were initiated, and therefore, the present respondents are bonafide purchasers of the land in question and therefore also the order passed by the Tribunal is just, legal and proper an does not call for any interference of this Court. Mr. Sanjanwala learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of this court in the case of (1) Subhashbhai Premji v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2003(4) GLR p. 3457, (2) Man Mandir Co-operative Housing Society v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2007(2) GLR p. 1111, (3) Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors., vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2013(20 GLR 1788, and (4) State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Maganbhai V. Desai & Ors., reported in 2015(2) GLR p. 1140 and submitted that the issue involved HC-NIC Page 19 of 31 Created On Tue Mar 01 01:10:28 IST 2016 in the present petition is squarely covered by these decisions of this Court and prayed that the petition be dismissed.