Gujarat High Court
Dhirubhai Dhanjibhai Vasava vs State Of Gujarat on 20 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8788/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8788 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8788 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DHIRUBHAI DHANJIBHAI VASAVA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
JAGATSINH L VASAVA(7888) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Respondent(s) No. 7
MR AKASH CHHAYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR ARPIT A KAPADIA(3974) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6,7.1,7.2,7.3,7.4,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 20/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) That your Lordship be pleased to admit and allow this Petition.
(B) That the Lower Court of Mandvi Civil Court Surat District Grossly Violated Section3 (H) (4) of The National Highways Act-1956 where the Lower Court had no Jurisdiction to pass Judgment or any order as per the aforesaid provision, therefore the Judgment/order passed Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:20:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8788/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined in CMA/11/2011 dated 29/04/2024/30/04/2024 be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the District & Session Judge, Surat for adjudication under The provisions of the National Highways Act-1956. (C) Deleted (D) Pending disposal of this petition, This Honble Court may stay the impugned Judgment of CMA/11/2024 dated 29/04/30/04/2024, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mandvi, District Surat.
(E) For such other and further reliefs as the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;"
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jagatsinh L. Vasava for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Arpit A. Kapadia for respondent no.1 and learned AGP Mr. Akash Chhaya for respondent nos. 2 to 4.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Mandvi, Surat, who has decided Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2022 vide its impugned judgment and order dated 29-30/4/2024, is having no jurisdiction to decide the application filed under Section 3(H)(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1956").
Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:20:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8788/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined 3.1 He would submit that as per Section 3(H)(4) of the Act, 1956, the learned Principal Civil Court is the competent court to hear and decide the application. He would further submit that as per Section 19 of the Civil Courts Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1977"), the District Court shall be deemed to be the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the District.
3.2 He would further submit that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge is without jurisdiction, and when the court lacks inherent jurisdiction, this court requires to entertain the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. To buttress his arguments, he would rely upon Section 19 of the Act, 1977, as well as a decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. District Magistrate, Mau reported in AIR 2023 SC 3337.
3.3 Making the above submissions, he would request this Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:20:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8788/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order challenged in the present petition, thereby allowing the present petition.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Kapadia, appearing for respondent no.1 would submit that petitioner has participated in the proceedings before the Principal Civil Judge Court Surat, who had conducted Civil Miscellaneous Application no. 11 of 2022 filed at the instance of respondent no. 2 under Section 3(H)(4) of the Act, 1956 and at this stage, petitioners cannot be allowed to question the judgment and authority by filing a present petition.
4.1 Nonetheless, when learned advocate Mr. Kapadia was apprised about Section 19 of the Act, 1977, vis-à-vis the provision of Section 3(H)(4) of the Act, 1956, as an officer of the court, he candidly accepted the fact that in view of the aforesaid provisions of law, the impugned application, i.e. Civil Misc. Application No. 11 of 2022, requires to be Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:20:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8788/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined adjudicated by the District Court, Surat and not by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mandvi at Surat. 4.2 So, learned advocate Mr. Kapadia would request this court that, in view of the aforesaid factual situation and the provisions of law prevailing as on date, if this court quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mandvi at Surat, then an appropriate direction may be issued by this court to the trial court to forward complete records of Civil Misc. Application No. 11 of 2022 to the District Court Surat, which is competent to decide the impugned application filed under Section 3(H)(4) of the Act, 1956, within a stipulated time. He also requested that the District Court may be advised to decide afresh the impugned application in accordance with the law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties.
5. Learned AGP Mr. Chhaya would not be in a position to dispute the aforesaid facts and the position of law. Learned Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:20:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8788/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined AGP would submit that due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of respondent no. 2, the impugned application was inadvertently wrongly filed before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Mandvi at Surat instead of the District Court Surat. Hence, he would request this court to pass an appropriate order in the matter. Thereby, the interests of all the concerned may be taken care of, and a fresh order can be passed by the competent court, who has jurisdiction to decide the issue between the parties.
No other or further submissions are made.
6. The short controversy which centers around the present case is as to whether the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mandvi, District: Surat is competent to decide Civil Misc. Application No. 11 of 2022 filed by respondent no. 2 under Section 3(H)(4) of the Act, 1956?
6.1 If such a court does not have jurisdiction to decide the impugned application, then which court has jurisdiction to Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:20:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8788/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined decide such application?
7. Before, appreciating the arguments canvassed by learned advocates for the respective parties, I would like to refer to the following provisions of law: Section 3(H)(4) of the Act, 1956;
"3H.Deposit and payment of amount :-
(4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated." Section 19 of the Act, 1977 "19. District Court tobe principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. - The Court of the District Judge shall be deemed to be the District Court or principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district." 7.1 The plain reading of said provisions of law makes position of law very clear that any application filed under Section 3(H)(4) of the Act, 1956 is required to be decided by the Principal Civil Court concerned. In view of Section 19 of the Act, 1977, the District Court shall be deemed to be the Principal Civil Court. If it be so, the impugned application Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:20:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8788/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined ought to have been preferred before the District Court and not before the Principal Senior Civil Court, Mandvi at Surat. It is required to be noted here that no other definition of Principal Civil Court given under the Act, 1956.
7.2 Thus, I am of the view that the Principal Senior Civil Judge Mandvi is not a Principal Civil Court. The impugned order passed by such a court is without jurisdiction, as that court lacks inherent jurisdiction to decide such an application as per the provisions of the Act, 1956.
7.3 Thus, in view of the aforesaid provisions of law, when the impugned judgment and orders passed by an incompetent court, which lacks inherent jurisdiction may be inadvertently, such an order is required to be interfered with by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no such bar under any law, thereby in a situation like present, this Court cannot exercise it's jurisdiction / power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:20:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8788/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined 7.4 Hence, in view of the above, the impugned judgment and order dated 29-30/04/2022 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mandvi at Surat in Civil Miscellaneous Application number 11 of 2022 is required tobe quashed and set aside, which I do so.
7.5 Having so observed that the Principal Senior Civil Judge Mandvi is incompetent to decide the impugned application, then, as observed herein-above, as per Section 19 of the Act, 1977, the District Court Surat would be the competent court to decide the dispute between the parties, including the impugned application filed under Section 3(H)(4) of the Act, 1956.
8. At this stage, just to save time and to facilitate the parties to get early justice, as an exception, this court would like to pass the following order:
8.1 The impugned judgment and order dated 29-30/04/2022 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge Mandvi Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:20:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8788/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined below Exhibit 31 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside.
8.2 The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mandvi, District: Surat is requested to send the entire record of Civil Misc. Application No. 11 of 2022, which was disposed of by it, to the District Court, Surat within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
8.3 Once the District Court Surat receives the entire record, the same may be assigned a new number, and the application shall be decided afresh by issuing notice to the respective parties to the application, including respondent no. 2 herein i.e. the Competent Authority and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Surat.
8.4 This exercise may be completed within a period of 4 weeks by the District Court, and if so required, all parties may be intimated about the next date of hearing through RPAD. 8.5 After service of notice upon the parties, the District Court is hereby requested to give reasonable opportunity of hearing Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:20:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8788/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined to the parties, including permitting the parties to submit any documents which they are relying upon. They may be heard, and the application filed under Section 3(H)(4) of the Act, 1956, shall be adjudicated in accordance with the law, preferably within 4 months from the service of notice of application to all parties.
9. It goes without saying that the District Court Surat will hear and adjudicate the application on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made by the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mandvi at Surat or by this court while deciding the present petition.
9.1 It is further made clear that this court has neither examined nor gone into the merits of the matter. 9.2 As a word of caution, this Court would like to request learned Assistant Government Pleader to inform concern authority who in future requires to file such application under Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:20:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8788/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined Section 3(H)(4) of the Act, 1956 to see that such application be filed before the District Court concern. So, such type of mistake can be avoided.
10. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present petition deserves to be allowed, and the same is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
11. In view of disposal of main petition, civil application would not survive and is disposed of accordingly.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) DRASHTI K. SHUKLA Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Mon Jan 27 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:20:25 IST 2025