C/SCA/18264/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18264 of 2022
==========================================================
RISHABH SOFTWARE PVT. LTD. THRO AUTHO. SIGN. SANDIP
RATANLAL SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEVEN PARIKH, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
MR HET N SHAH(11211) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNJ KANARA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 10/02/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. The additional affidavit tendered by the petitioner is to be taken on record.
2. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Nikunj Kanara waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
3. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.06.2021 passed by respondent No.3 - District Collector, Vadodara rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for bona fide industrial use permission and the order dated 14.02.2022 passed by respondent No.2- Special Secretary Revenue Department (SSRD) confirming the Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 17 20:30:52 IST 2023 C/SCA/18264/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2023 aforesaid order dated 09.06.2021. The authorities have rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking bona fide industrial use permission on the ground (1) the Mamlatdar and ALT had given negative opinion and due to the pendency of the case in Integrated Revenue Case Management System (IRCMS), (2) As per letter dated 04.12.2020 of the Deputy Collector, the Civil Suits are pending with regard to the land in question and (3) As per Section 63AA (3) (a) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'), the applicant was required to inform the competent authority within a period of 30 days from the day of purchase of the land.
4. It is the case of the respondent authorities that the petitioner purchased the said land on 19.10.2007 and the application has been filed by the petitioner on 10.08.2020 and it is stated that the petitioner is required to pay fine as per Section 63AA (3) (b) of the Act.
5. Learned senior advocate Mr. Deven Parikh with Mr. S.P.Majmudar appearing for the petitioner has submitted that all the grounds stated hereinabove, as mentioned in the impugned orders, are not germane since Special Civil Suit No. 260 of 2008 has been decreed in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that there were five cases pending with regard to the land in question which all are disposed by the concerned authorities. Learned senior advocate Mr. Parikh has submitted that no opportunity of hearing has been conferred by the respondent authorities before passing the aforesaid order. It is Page 2 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 17 20:30:52 IST 2023 C/SCA/18264/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2023 submitted that had the opportunity of hearing could have been given, the petitioner could have pointed out all the necessary facts. It is also submitted that the petitioner had already filed an application before the Collector on 05.10.2000 showing their interest to pay Rs. 13,16,781/-, and the authorities can grant permission under Section 63AA (3) (a) of the Act. Finally, it is submitted that the impugned orders are unreasoned and non speaking orders and the same are required to be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Nikunj Kanara has submitted that the impugned orders do not require any interference and the same are appropriately passed by the respondent authorities. It is submitted that seeking permission for industrial use has been appropriately rejected in view of the provisions of Section 63AA (3) (a) of the Act. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has further submitted that as per his informations, the case in IRCMS is already pending and hence, a negative opinion has been given by the Mamlatdar and ALT and therefore, seeking permission for industrial use has been appropriately rejected and therefore, the orders may not be quashed and set aside.
7. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. The dispute pertains to the land situated at Revenue Survey No. 67 admeasuring 00-68-80 Haq-Ra-Sq.Mts. at Village : Atladara, Taluka : Vadodara City West, District : Vadodara. There were various litigations pending with regard to the said land in question. Special Civil Suit No. 260 of 2008 was Page 3 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 17 20:30:52 IST 2023 C/SCA/18264/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2023 instituted by one Tejabhai Bodabhai Bharwad for specific performance of his agreement to sale dated 13.02.2003 and for cancellation of sale deed dated 19.10.2007. The said Suit came to be decreed in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2017 passed by the 14 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara.
7.1 One Mr. Prakashbhai Mafatbhai Patel (grandson of Chandubhai Patel), who is the legal heir of deceased - Jayaben Mafatbhai Patel (daughter) and legal heir of Chaganbhai Lallubhai Patel had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 636 of 2008 before Civil Judge, Vadodara for partition of the land in question, which was converted into Regular Civil Suit No. 1902 of 2015, which is pending, in which an interim application was filed below Exh.5 by the plaintiff for joining as a party and the same has been rejected vide order dated 26.07.2017 on the ground that the ancestors of the plaintiff have singed and had agreed to the partition-deed dated 13.07.1966, wherein the said land in question was given to one Mr. Ramanbhai Chaganbhai and the said land in question is sold to the present petitioner. Mr. Ramanbhai Chaganbhai Patel had also instituted one Regular Civil Suit No. 257 of 2009 for declaration and permanent injunction against the present petitioner and others and the said suit also came to be dismissed for default below Exh.1 dated 19.11.2019. Since Special Civil Suit No. 260 of 2008 was decreed in favour of the petitioner, and entry No. 4135 dated 12.03.2019 has been mutated in the revenue record confirming the sale transaction dated 19.10.2007 in favour of the present petitioner.
Page 4 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 17 20:30:52 IST 2023C/SCA/18264/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2023 8. No sooner the aforesaid entry was mutated in the
revenue record, one Mr. Rakesh Ramanbhai Patel objected the entry before the Mamlatdar by preferring RTS/Appeal/case No.3 of 2019, which was rejected by the order dated 03.06.2019 and the same was further challenged by filing an appeal before the Deputy Collector, in RTS/ Appeal/ case No. 19 of 2019, which was also rejected by order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector. Thus as on today, entry no. 4135 dated 12.03.2019 with regard to the sale deed entered in favour of the petitioner has become final. Since, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record on 12.03.2019, the petitioner again made an application before the Collector on 14.07.2020 for granting bona fide industrial use permission under Section 63AA(3)(a) of the Act.
9. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer that after the sale deed dated 19.10.2007 an entry No. 3418 dated 23.02.2008 was mutated, hence the petitioner made an application on 16.01.2008 before the Collector,Vadodara for granting bona fide industrial use permission under Section 63AA (3) (a) of the Act, which has been rejected at the relevant time vide a communication dated 27.11.2010. Thereafter, as mentioned hereinabove, there were various litigations pending against the petitioner with respect to the land in question and finally entry No. 4135 has been mutated on 12.03.2019. The petitioner has again made an application dated 14.07.2020 for granting bona fide industrial use permission. By way of an additional affidavit, the petitioner has specifically made a statement that under the Integrated Revenue Case Page 5 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 17 20:30:52 IST 2023 C/SCA/18264/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2023 Management System, there are total seven cases, wherein five cases are disposed of and two cases being RTS / Revision/ Cases No. 100 of 2022 and 118/2022 are pending before the Collector, Vadodara. There are various details provided about five disposed cases in Paragraph No.2 of such additional affidavit and in Paragraph No.3 the statement has been made by the petitioner, that neither any notice is received in any case nor any proceedings are pending for the land in question under the Gujarat State Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
10. After the aforesaid proceedings are disposed of, the petitioner filed an application seeking the aforesaid permission and the impugned order dated 09.06.2021 passed by the Collector, reflects the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the application. The impugned order dated 09.06.2021 also refers to the negative opinion of the Deputy Collector dated 04.12.2020 opining that due to pendency of the suits for the land in question, the permission can not be granted. Similarly, the opinion of the Mamlatdar and ALT,Vadodara City is also taken into consideration, who has also given negative opinion due to pendency of the cases against the petitioner-Company. Final, the impugned order effects of payment of penalty of Rs. 13,16,781/-.
11. Being aggrieved, the aforesaid order was challenged by filing Revision Application before the SSRD, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 14.02.2020. The SSRD, while rejecting the aforesaid Revision Application has observed that since the petitioner was unable to provide any Page 6 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 17 20:30:52 IST 2023 C/SCA/18264/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2023 documentary evidence, the revision application is required to be rejected.
12. The first order passed by the District Collector dated 09.06.2021 is blissfully silent with regard to the disposal of the suit, as mentioned hereinabove in favour of the petitioner. Had the Collector called upon the details of such suit before forming an opinion, the petitioner could have stated about the disposal of the suits. The Collector has merely relied upon the negative opinions formed by the Deputy Collector and Mamlatdar on the details provided in the IRCMS without actually verifying the orders passed in the Civil Suits. Special Civil Suit No. 260 of 2008 was decreed in favour of the petitioner and accordingly entry No. 4135 was mutated on 12.03.2019 in the revenue record confirming the sale transaction dated 19.10.2007. It is also pertinent to note that the aforesaid entry was subject matter of challenge in RTS proceedings and ultimately the Deputy Collector vide order dated 30.09.2000 has also confirmed the mutation of the entry of the sale-deed. Since the very sale-deed dated 19.10.2007, by which the petitioner had purchased the land in question, was being examined before the Civil Court and after the petitioner succeeded in Civil Suit, on 12.03.2019, entry no. 4135 was mutated, he filed an application again for granting permission for bona fide industrial use. Had the petitioner filed any application seeking permission before the decision of the Civil Court in all probabilities the respondent authority could have rejected the same on the ground of the pendency of the suits. Hence, after the transaction of the land in question, which was purchased Page 7 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 17 20:30:52 IST 2023 C/SCA/18264/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2023 by the petitioner vide sale-deed dated 19.10.2007 became final and the entry having being mutated in the revenue being entry no. 4135, the petitioner was justified in making a fresh application before the Collector on 14.07.2020 seeking permission for industrial use, since his earlier application was already rejected in the year 2010. The respondent authorities have failed to appreciate the aforesaid facts in its true prospective including the SSRD.
13. The present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.06.2021 passed by respondent No.3 - District Collector, Vadodara and the order dated 14.02.2022 passed by respondent No.2- Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) are hereby quashed and set aside.
14. The respondent- State authorities are directed to pass a fresh order, after examining all the proceedings in detail and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put their case, as the land in question is marred in various controversies and has been subject matter of challenge in various proceedings. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. Rule is made to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) SALIM/pc-6 Page 8 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 17 20:30:52 IST 2023