C/LPA/260/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 260 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7160 of 2015
==========================================================
LHR OF DECD MAGANBHAI LALLUBHAI JIVABHAI TALPADA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT(1224) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,1.1,2,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5,2.6,2.7
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 07/03/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI) 1 By way of present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the original petitioner has challenged the oral judgment and order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 7160 of 2015, by which, challenge qua different orders including that of the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is not entertained.
Page 1 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 10 20:38:58 IST 2023
C/LPA/260/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/03/2023 2 The case of the petitioner before this Court is that the grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Lallubhai Jivabhai Talpada, was a protected tenant by virtue of order dated 17.10.1960 passed in Suo Motu Tenancy Case No. 232 of 1960. Even it is also the case of the petitioner that a Certificate under Section 32 M of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was issued by the Mamlatdar on 23.10.1984, however, the Certificate has not been produced.
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3, purchased the land admeasuring 13096 sq.mtrs for the construction of factory and 3568 sq.mtrs for the purpose of open land situated at village: Kamla, Tal: Nadiad. According to the petitioner, N.A. permission was granted under Sec.65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, way back on 11.08.1961 on certain terms and conditions. 2.2 In the year 2012, the petitioner made an application before the Deputy Collector, Nadiad, that the company Page 2 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 10 20:38:58 IST 2023 C/LPA/260/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/03/2023 has not complied with the conditions of N.A permission. Proceedings were initially decided by the Collector in favour of the Company and ultimately by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. All that orders came to be challenged by captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 7160 of 2015. The learned Single Judge by oral judgement dated 15.07.2022 dismissed the petition, hence the present appeal.
3 Mr.Mrugen Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that though an application was made by the petitioner for breach of terms and conditions of N.A Permission, which was granted in favour of private respondents, before passing the orders, the Collector did not give an opportunity of hearing. He would submit that the Tribunal ought not to have examined the right, title or interest of the petitioner since he was a protected tenant. He therefore would submit that the order passed by the authority and confirmed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside.
Page 3 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 10 20:38:58 IST 2023
C/LPA/260/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/03/2023 4 We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, perused the impugned order, the contents raised in the memo of the petition, affidavit-in- reply filed on behalf of the private respondent No.4 and the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. It is undisputed fact that the property in question was purchased in the year 1960 by respondent No.3 and N.A. Permission was obtained in the year 1961. On behalf of the applicant, an application was made for the first time after more than 41 years i.e. in the year 2012, and therefore, the authorities below have rightly held about right, title or interest of the of the present petitioners. Apart from the ownership of right and property, such application has been preferred after an unexplained delay on behalf of the present appellants. It also appears that the order was passed by this Court way back on 10.04.1974 in Special Civil Application No. 1467 of 1969 filed by the present respondent company for payment of Rs.17,000/- and requesting to drop the proceedings initiated under Sec. 32(G) of the The Bombay Tenancy & Page 4 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 10 20:38:58 IST 2023 C/LPA/260/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/03/2023 Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which was accepted. All these aspects have been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly held that the appellants have no right, title or interest in the property. The learned Single Judge has considered various aspects, including civil proceedings filed at the instance of the present petitioner. The order of the Tribunal is confirmed by this Court in another proceedings, being Special Civil Application No. 6856 of 1991. All these aspects have been considered by the learned Single Judge. 5 We are in agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paras 5 to 8, which are reproduced hereinabove:
"5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the material on record it appears that the petitioners have lost their battle with regard to their right as protected tenants over the land in question. Except pendency of the Regular Civil Suit No. 338 of 2012, there is no other proceeding which is pending. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has also dismissed the Revision Application filed by one of the ancestors of the petitioners being Revision Application No. TEA.B.A 51/86 by order dated 08.03.1991 by holding as under:Page 5 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 10 20:38:58 IST 2023
C/LPA/260/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/03/2023 "11.Under the circumstances, considering the documentary evidence on record and the attitude of the deceased tenant is not depositing the amount of purchase price prove that the deceased tenant had absolutely no right, title and interest in suit survey number, the deceased tenant had sold his right, title and interest in the suit survey number to Mahendra Electricals Co. Hence the applicant has absolutely no right, title and interest in the suit survey number. In the result, I do not find any reason to remand this case to the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. for any further hearing. All the documentary evidence on which the parties want to rely are before us and the applicant is not in a position to prove his interest in the suit survey number, while the opponent No.1 Mahendra Electricals has proved that I it a bona fie purchaser of the suit survey number from the father of the applicant after obtaining permission u/s. 63 of the Act. In the result, the applicant is not entitled to get any relief. Hence, the revision application fails and is dismissed."
6. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal is confirmed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6856 of 1991 vide order dated 15.07.1995.
7. Thus, the order passed under section 63 of the Act, 1948 has achieved finality on the ground that tenant has sold his right, title, or interest in the land in question to Mahendra Electricals Company and therefore, the petitioners have absolutely no right, title or interest in the land in question. As the respondent No.3 Mahendra Electricals Company is held to be a bona fide purchaser of the land in question from the protected tenant after obtaining permission under section 63 of the Act, 1948, the petitioners would not have any locus to make any Page 6 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 10 20:38:58 IST 2023 C/LPA/260/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/03/2023 application raising any objection against N.A.order passed in 1961, as the petitioners do not have any right title or interest over the land in question in any manner whatsoever.
8.This Court also in case of Bhayabhai Vajshibhai Hathalia(supra) has held that section 65 of the Code does not envisage scope of raising any objection by any party who is not acknowledged right or interest in the land in question."
6 We do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by Mr.Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petition is accordingly, dismissed.
(A.J.DESAI, ACJ) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J) BIMAL Page 7 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 10 20:38:58 IST 2023