Gujarat High Court
Thakor Ranchhodji Bhaijiji vs The State Of Gujarat on 8 January, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11589/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11589 of 2024
========================================================
THAKOR RANCHHODJI BHAIJIJI
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
========================================================
Appearance:
MR YV VAGHELA(2450) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JK SHAH ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
MR ABHIJIT RATHOD(12976) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 08/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Y.V. Vaghela on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government pleader Mr. J.K. Shah on behalf of the respondent- State and learned Advocate Mr. Abhijit Rathod on behalf of respondent no.4.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 28.08.2023 refusing to condone delay in preferring appeal.
2.1 It appears that the petitioner herein is the original owner of land bearing Survey No. 137 situated at Village:Ambaliyara Taluka: Kadi District:
Mehsana admeasuring Acre 0.29 Gunthas. It appears that the land in question was sold by the petitioner to respondent no.4 herein vide registered sale-deed dated 01.06.1993 and effect thereof had been mutated in the revenue record vide mutation entry no. 1297 recorded on 16.10.1993. It Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:38:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11589/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined appears that on 08.03.1995 suo motu proceedings under Section 84C(1) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act' for short) had been registered by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Kadi vide Tenancy Case No. 160 of 1994 inter alia calling upon the parties to show cause as to why the transaction should not be reversed and the land be directed to be reverted back to the seller i.e the petitioner herein.
3. It appears that the petitioner had submitted his reply to the notice vide reply dated 25.05.1996 inter alia contending that even after the sale- deed in question, the possession of the land had remained with the petitioner and the land had never been used in any manner whatsoever by the respondent no. 4 and that the petitioner was cultivating the land and that he was also paying the land revenue for the same, and whereas it was further submitted that since the possession had never been transferred the suo motu proceedings may be closed. It appears that vide an order dated 27.05.1996, the Mamlatar and ALT, Kadi had ordered the land to be vested in the State Government. The said order had been challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Collector ( Land Reforms ) Mehsana by preferring Tenancy Case No. 178 of 1996 and whereas vide order dated 18.06.2001 the order passed by the Mamlatdar had been confirmed. It further appears that against order dated 18.06.2001, the petitioner had preferred a revision application with considerable delay and whereas vide the order impugned, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal had not entertained the revision application only on the ground of unexplained delay. The petitioner had thereafter approached this Court challenging the said decision.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Vaghela on behalf of the petitioner would assail the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal submitting that an Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:38:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11589/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined application for condonation of delay wherein a reasonable explanation for condoning the delay had been provided but the same had not been considered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. It is submitted by learned Advocate that the petitioner herein is aged around 70 years and whereas after the order impugned had been passed, he was not keeping good health having sustained a fracture which had restricted even his day to day activities and in the interregnum his brother had expired which had all contributed to the delay. Learned Advocate would also submit that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal did not consider the fact of proceedings under Section 84C were also initiated after delay of approximately three years from the date of transaction. Learned Advocate would submit that the law in this regard being well settled that suo motu proceedings could not be initiated after an unreasonable period of time, the proceedings itself were barred by delay.
4.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Vaghela would submit that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal had not considered the most important issue in this entire dispute i.e. the parties not having been given any opportunity to restore the land to its original position. Learned Advocate Mr. Vaghela in this regard would submit that the petitioner in his reply to notice under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act, had submitted that possession of the property had not been taken over by the purchaser i.e respondent no. 4 and whereas the petitioner was having the possession of the land in question all throughout till date. Learned Advocate would submit that the said issue of the land being in possession of the petitioner was brought to the notice of the Mamlatdar and whereas even the Deputy Collector in the impugned order noticed the said fact, yet, none of the authorities had deemed it appropriate to call upon the parties to restore back the ownership to the present petitioner. Learned Advocate would submit that the same was a Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:38:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11589/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined serious lacuna and whereas it is submitted by the petitioner that this Court may take a lenient and sympathetic view having regard to the fact that area of land, is a very small parcel, that the petitioner sustains his family by cultivating the said land and till date except for passing of impugned orders, no further steps have been taken by the respondent State either to take over the possession of the land in question and/ or to take further steps in regard to the same. Learned Advocate Mr.Vaghela would submit that in this set of circumstances, this Court may interfere with the orders passed by the authorities concerned and afford an opportunity to the parties to restore the title of the land in favour of the petitioner.
5. This petition has been vehemently objected to by learned AGP Mr. Shah on behalf of respondent- State . Learned AGP would submit that no error whatsoever has been committed by the revenue authorities which would require any interference by this Court.
6. Learned Advocate Mr. Abhijit Rathod had appeared on behalf of respondent no. 4 and whereas an affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the said respondent whereby respondent no.4 has averred that though deponent had purchased the subject property from the petitioner, possession thereof was never transferred in favour of the deponent and even otherwise the transaction between the deponent and the original petitioner had never been given effect to. Learned Advocate Mr. Rathod would emphasize on averments at paragraph no. 6 whereby it is averred that the deponent would restore the original position by executing a deed reversing sale-deed dated 01.06.1993 within such time as may be permitted by the Court.
Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:38:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11589/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined 6.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Rathod would in this regard submit that the
deponent having never taken over possession and the deponent undertaking to reverse sale-deed dated 01.06.1993, appropriate orders allowing this petition may be passed by the Court.
7. It appears that considering the submissions made by the parties, this Court was of the prima facie opinion that on account of the peculiar facts of the case, an opportunity needs to be granted to the parties to resort to the procedure as envisaged in Section 84C of restoring the status of the land to the position prior to the sale-deed, and since it appeared to this Court that before passing any orders in that regard the submission of the petitioner that he was still in possession of the land would be required to be verified and hence vide an order dated 03.09.2024, this Court had directed the Mamlatdar, Kadi to have a site inspection of the land in question done and submit a report to this Court. Vide order dated 06.09.2024, this Court had recorded that learned Assistant Government Pleader had tendered original copy of the panchnama as per the directions of this Court. A perusal of the site inspection report, indicates that the possession of the land was with the petitioner and that there was standing crop on the land and that possession had always remained with the petitioner. The above aspect shall be appropriately dealt with in the later part of this decision.
6. Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties and perused the documents on record.
9. The question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the delay in preferring the revision application is required to be condoned and also as to whether the impugned orders require any interference.
Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:38:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11589/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined
10. At the outset insofar as the aspect of delay is concerned, this Court seeks to rely upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors reported in 1987(2) SCC 107. Paragraph No. 3 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced herein for benefit:
"3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 51 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaning- ful manner which subserves the ends of justice-- that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:-
"Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period."
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is con- doned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:38:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11589/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the 'State' which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a liti- gant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is admin- istered in an even handed manner. There is no warrant for according a stepmotherly treatment when the 'State' is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact experi- ence shows that on account of an impersonal machinary (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the in-herited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-mak- ing, file pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more diffi- cult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant-non- grata status. The Courts therefore have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression "suffi- cient cause". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even handed justice on mertis in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. Turning to the facts of the matter giving rise to the present appeal, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists for the delay. The order of the High Court dismissing the appeal before it as time barred, is therefore. set aside. Delay is condoned. And the matter is remitted to the High Court. The High Court will now dispose of the appeal Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:38:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11589/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides."
10.1. The above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court though passed in context of an application preferred by the State of Jammu and Kashmir, yet, to this Court it would appear that the said observations would be applicable to the present set of facts also.
10.2 Considering the present facts from the perspective of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it would appear that in the present case, the litigant i.e. the petitioner did not stand to benefit by lodging a delayed revision application. As could be noticed, the petitioner had contested the proceedings before the Mamlatdar and furthermore the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Mamlatdar had also preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector immediately and thus, except for certain unforeseen circumstances, it could not be reasonably concluded that the petitioner in any way stood benefited by the delay. Again what could be considered is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter alia laid down that the opponent in an application for condoning delay could not claim that technical consideration should trump over substantial justice because of a non deliberate delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observes that a litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay rather he runs a serious risk.
10.3 As noticed hereinabove, it would not appear that the petitioner was an indolent litigant, who had never contested any proceedings. Again as noticed hereinabove, the petitioner had participated in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar and ALT, Kadi and had also challenged the order passed by the Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:38:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11589/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined Mamlatdar before the Deputy Collector, Mehsana and whereas it is only after the order rejected his appeal had been filed had been passed by the Deputy Collector, Mehsana that the petitioner had filed the revision belatedly. As observed though the revision is filed belatedly, the petitioner cannot be equated with the indolent litigant who had neither participated in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar or even questioned the order passed by Mamlatdar. On the aspect of the substantial justice, it would appear to this Court that considering the submission that the parcel of land in question, which is by itself a small piece of agriculture land, has always remained with the petitioner and further considering the fact that the petitioner is sustaining his family by cultivating the land in question and furthermore considering the fact that the petition is not filed at a stage when the petitioner apprehends some coercive action by the respondent authorities, to this Court it would appear that the present would be a fit case whereby the extraordinary powers of this Court may be exercised having regard to the peculiar facts as narrated hereinabove.
11. Insofar as the merits is concerned, at the outset, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce Section 84C(1) and (2) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, hereinbelow for benefit:
84C. Disposal of land, transfer or acquisition of which is invalid.
(1) Where in respect of the transfer or acquisition of any land made on or after the commencement of the Amending Act, 1955, the Mamlatdar suo motu or on the application of any person interested in such land has reason to believe that such transfer or acquisition is or becomes invalid under any of the provisions of the Act, the Mamlatdar shall issue a notice and hold an inquiry as provided for in section 84B and decide whether the transfer or acquisition is or is not valid.
(2) If after holding such inquiry, the Mamlatdar comes to a conclusion that the transfer or acquisition of land to be invalid, he shall make an order declaring the transfer or acquisition to be invalid, [unless the parties to Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:38:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11589/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined such transfer or acquisition give an undertaking in writing a period of three months from such date as the Mamlatdar may fix, they shall restore the land alongwith the rights and interest therein to the position in which it was immediately before the transfer or acquisition, and the land is so restored within that period] [Empahsis supplied] [Provided that, where the transfer of land was made by the landlord to the tenant of the land and the area of the land so transferred together with the area of other land, if any cultivated personally by the tenant did not exceed the ceiling area, the Mamlatdar shall not declare such transfer to be invalid-
(i) if the amount received by the landlord as the price of the land is equal to or less than the reasonable price determined under section 63A and the transferee pays to the State Government a penalty equal to Rs. 1 within such period not exceeding three months as the Mamlatdar may fix;
(ii) if the amount received by the landlord as the price of the land is in excess of the reasonable price determined under section 63A and the transferor as well as the transferee pays to the State Government each a penalty equal to one-tenth of the reasonable price within such period as may be fixed by the Mamlatdar.] 11.1 Perusal of the above sections would reveal that the Mamlatdar is empowered suo motu or on an application of any person interested to hold an inquiry after issuing a notice and decide whether the transfer or acquisition is valid of not. The provision further envisages that after the inquiry if the Mamlatdar comes to a conclusion that the transfer or acquisition of the land was invalid, then the Mamlatdar would make an order declaring the transfer or acquisition to be invalid. The provision further envisages that such order shall not be passed if the parties to the transfer give an undertaking in writing that within a period of three months as specified by the Mamlatdar, they would restore the land along with the rights and interest therein to the position in which it was immediately before the transfer or acquisition.
11.2. A plain reading of the provision makes it clear that while agriculture Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:38:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11589/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined land could be transferred or acquired in tune with the provisions of the Tenancy Act, that the Mamlatdar being empowered to initiate proceedings suo motu or on an application of an interested party as regards whether transfer or acquisition was permissible as per the provisions of the Tenancy Act or not and in case the transfer or acquisition is in violation of the provisions of the Tenancy Act then the Mamlatdar is empowered to direct vesting of the land in the State Government. The exception to the consequence being that if the parties agree to restore the land to its original position before the transfer or acquisition in question then such order is not required to be passed. The intent being that agricultural land could not be transacted beyond and subject to the embargo by the Tenancy Act and in case such a transfer had taken place which was contravening the provisions of the Tenancy Act then, the parties were provided with an opportunity to restore status quo ante, i.e to ensure that the land remained with a person who was entitled to retain the land, i.e. that is the agriculturist-original owner.
12. Now, considering the facts situation from the perspective of the enactment, it would appear that there is no quarrel on the aspect that respondent no. 4 was not empowered to purchase agriculture land as per the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The sale in favour of the respondent no. 4 dated 01.06.1993 was not in tune even with the provisions of Tenancy Act and hence invalid, yet, the issue is whether the Mamlatdar had erred in passing the order directing vesting of the land in the State Government.
12.1 In this regard it would be pertinent to refer to the affidavit preferred by the petitioner dated 21.05.1996 before the Mamlatdar, of which incidentally the Mamlatdar had taken cognizance of. It would appear from Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:38:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11589/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined the affidavit that the Mamlatdar was very specifically informed that the possession of the land was never transferred to the purchaser, yet, the Mamlatdar does not appear to have afforded any opportunity to the parties to reverse the transaction in question. While the intent of this Court is not to hold that retaining possession should be the sine qua non for parties to claim permission to restore, and whereas what is intended to be observed is that since the Act itself envisages that the parties should get an opportunity to restore the position prior to the sale which is under question, then in the present circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Mamlatdar, since the petitioner had contended very clearly that he retained the possession of the land in question, to have called upon the parties to restore the position as it stood before the sale in question failing which the Mamlatdar would have been justified in directing the land in question to be vested in the State.
13. Again it would appear that the Deputy Collector where the petitioner had preferred an appeal, had also taken cognizance of the affidavit yet, the Deputy Collector, had gone on the issue as regards another transaction whereby respondent no. 4 had been made the beneficiary of a Will which had resulted in an agriculture land being bequeathed to the respondent no.
4.14. To this Court it would appear that since the respondent no. 4 had not challenged the order passed by the Mamlatdar directing vesting of the land in the State Government, the status of the respondent no. 4 appeared to be very clear i.e respondent no. 4 was not empowered to transact agriculture lands and under such circumstances the fact of whether the respondent no. 4 was an agriculturist or not was completely besides the point. The point as it appeared from the order as made out by the petitioner who had Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:38:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11589/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined approached the Deputy Collector was the fact that the sale had never been acted upon and the petitioner retained possession of the land and hence the proceedings ought not to have been initiated at all. It would appear that without appreciating the said aspect, the Deputy Collector had gone on a tangential issue which did not require his consideration.
15. This Court also takes appropriate note of the site inspection report by the Mamlatdar, Kadi dated 05.09.2024, i.e very recently, wherein it is clearly reported that the petitioner continues to retain possession of the land in question and the possession was always with the petitioner.
15.1. This Court also takes appropriate note of the affidavit by respondent no. 4 wherein even the respondent no. 4 makes it clear that the sale had never been acted upon between the parties and that the respondent no.4 would be ready and wiling to enter into a deed for cancellation of the earlier sale-deed dated 01.06.1993 between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4.
16. Having regard to the above discussion and finding, it would appear to this Court that there are certain peculiar facts in the present case, inasmuch as the petitioner and respondent no. 4 while they had entered into a transaction whereby the land in question was sold to respondent no. 4 but the effect of the sale had not percolated to the ground level. The petitioner as seller of the land, continued to retain possession of the land all throughout. It would further appear that the petitioner at the first opportunity i.e in the Section 84C proceedings before the Mamlardar had informed about possession of the land having never been handed over to the respondent no. 4. That inspite of such a specific statement in the affidavit of the petitioner, and the Mamlatdar having taken note of the said Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:38:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11589/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined affidavit, yet, the procedure as per Section 84C(2) does not appear to have been resorted to by the Mamlatdar. It also appears that while the Deputy Collector was considering challenge to the order of the Mamlatdar by the petitioner only, implying that the status of respondent no. 4 as not being an agriculturalist was not disputed by respondent no. 4 himself, yet, the Deputy Collector goes on to decide a tangential issue. The Deputy Collector did not take appropriate note as regards the statement of the petitioner as figured in his affidavit dated 25.01.1996 which had also been noted by the Deputy Collector whereby the petitioner had emphasized about retaining possession of the land in question. Again as regards the aspect of possession of the petitioner the same having been verified by the Mamlatdar, Kadi it would appear that the same is undisputed i.e. the possession being retained by the petitioner himself. Furthermore, the respondent no. 4 has also by way of affidavit stated that the sale-deed in question had never been acted upon and he is ready and willing to restore status quo ante by entering into a deed for cancellation of sale-deed dated 01.06.1993. Thus it would appear to this Court that the present is a case where intervention is required though the revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal was filed with considerable delay and as observed hereinabove, the primary aspects which had weighed are the fact of possession of the petitioner had never been disturbed even after the sale-deed in question, respondent no. 4 showing inclination to restore status quo ante from his end and the fact of the land being a very small parcel of land admeasuring 2900 square meters i.e approximately 0.71 Acre and most importantly the submission that the petitioner sustains his family basis the said agriculture land.
17. Having regard to the above discussions, observations and conclusions, more particularly in the peculiar facts of the case, the following Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:38:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11589/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined directions are passed:
[1] The impugned order dated 27.05.1996 passed by the Mamlatdar, Kadi in Tenancy Case No. 160 of 1994, order dated
18.06.2001 passed by the Deputy Collector, Mehsana in Case No. Ganot/Vivad/178/96 and order dated 29.08.2023 by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Case No. Revision /MSN/58/2023 are hereby quashed and set aside.
[2] The respondent no. 4 and the petitioner to ensure that a deed of cancellation of registered sale-deed dated 01.06.1993 is entered into by the parties before the 31.03.2025.
[3] The petitioner shall intimate to the Mamlatdar, Kadi as regards the cancellation of sale-deed dated 01.06.1993 within 15 days from the date the deed is entered into.
[4] In case the parties do not comply with the directions of entering into a cancellation deed with regard to sale-deed dated 01.06.1993 then the orders of the Mamlatdar, Deputy Collector and GRT which have been set aside by this Court shall be immediately restored and whereas the land in question shall be deemed to vest with the State Government and appropriate action for effecting the order of vesting shall be taken by the State authorities.
18. With the above observations and direction, the present petition stands disposed as partly allowed.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) NIRU Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:38:32 IST 2025