Dhiren Ratilal Rajde vs The Special ...

Gujarat High Court

Dhiren Ratilal Rajde vs The Special ... on 29 January, 2025

Author: Nikhil S. Kariel

Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                               C/SCA/7820/2016                                   ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025

                                                                                                                 undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7820 of 2016

                                                           With
                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10088 of 2024
                        ==========================================================
                                        DHIREN RATILAL RAJDE & ANR.
                                                   Versus
                         THE SPECIAL SECRETARY(APPEAL),REVENUE DEPARTMENT & ORS.
                        ==========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
                        MR NIKUNJ KANARA ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
                        Respondent(s) No. 1
                        MR SHIVANG M SHAH(5916) for the Respondent(s) No. 7
                        MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
                        NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,8
                        RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,8
                        ==========================================================

                             CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                                                        Date : 29/01/2025

                                                          ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit for the petitioners, learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondent - State Authority, learned advocate Mr. Tejas P. Satta for the respondent No.6 and learned advocate Mr. Shivang Shah for the respondent No.7.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 23.03.2016 passed by the Revisional Authority confirming the order dated 10.07.2015 passed by the District Collector, Kutch, setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition being that:

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7820/2016 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined

(a) The land in question being the land bearing Revenue Survey No.331 situated at village: Tuna, Ta. Anjar, was of the ownership of one Shri Mandan Kara and whereas the said owner had mortgaged the land with one M/s. Anjar Panjarapol, the same being reflected in the 7/12 extract of revenue record. It would appear that the respondent No.7 in capacity of daughter of the original owner had submitted a release deed dated 01.08.1991 before the Revenue Authority, whereby it appears that the said respondent had redeemed the mortgage. It would appear that once the mortgage was redeemed and the same had been produced before the Revenue Authorities, entry No.598 had been mutated in the revenue record in the year 1991, more particularly whereby the land being reflected as of the ownership of respondent No.7. It appears that the respondent No.7 had later on, relinquished her right upon the property in favour of respondent No.8 i.e. her husband and appropriate mutation with regard to the said family arrangement came to be mutated in the revenue record vide entry No.620, which was certified in the year 1992. It appears that the name of the respondent No.8 had continued in the revenue record for a considerable long period of time and whereas the petitioners herein being inclined to purchase the land in question, had got a public notice issued in local newspaper, inviting objections and whereas since no objection was received from any parties, the petitioners had entered into a registered sale deed with the respondent No.8 on 22.08.2005, which came to be mutated in the revenue records vide entry No.1086, certified on 23.01.2006. It appears that when things continued as such, the respondent No.6 herein, another daughter of the original owner had challenged the entry No.598 i.e. with regard to the redemption of mortgage and entry No.620 with regard to the respondent No.7 releasing her right in favour of the respondent No.8 and whereas the said Revision Application preferred by the respondent No.6 herein had been rejected by the Deputy Collector vide order dated 11.04.2014, more particularly on the ground of necessary parties not being Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Tue Feb 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 04 21:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7820/2016 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined joined. The said order had been challenged by the respondent No.6 before the Collector, Kutch and vide an order dated 10.07.2015, the Collector, Kutch, had set aside the entry Nos.598, 620 as well as 1086, whereby the sale in favour of the petitioners, had been mutated in the revenue record.

The said order had been challenged by the petitioners before the learned SSRD by preferring Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/Kutch/38/2015 and whereas vide order dated 23.03.2016, the learned SSRD had confirmed the order passed by the Collector dated 02.07.2015.

(b) It also appears that the respondent No.6 had also sold the properties to some third parties during the interregnum. It appears that the respondent No.6 had in the year 2015 preferred Regular Civil Suit No.359 of 2015 challenging amongst other things, the sale deed in favour of the petitioners herein and whereas on the other hand, the petitioners had preferred Regular Civil Suit No.217 of 2016 challenging the sale transaction entered into by the respondent No.6 and for other reliefs. It would appear that vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2023, the Suit preferred by the respondent No.6 came to be dismissed and whereas the Suit preferred by the petitioners herein came to be allowed. The learned Civil Court had declared that the respondent No.6 had no right, title or interest upon the land in question and the learned Civil Court had also set aside the registered sale deed entered into by the respondent No.6 in favour of some third parties dated 19.07.2007. The learned Civil Court has also restrained the respondent No.6 as well as the purchasers of the property from respondent No.6 to in any way obstruct or cause any hindrance to the present petitioners from beneficial enjoyment of their property.

(c) It is in the background of the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Court that the learned advocate for the petitioners has requested that the impugned order may be set aside. This Court is inclined Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Tue Feb 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 04 21:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7820/2016 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined to accept the request, since it would appear that the issue as regards the right of the parties is required to be decided in a substantive litigation i.e. the Civil Suit in question and once the rights have been adjudicated by the Civil Court, no purpose would be served in continuing the litigation i.e. the present petition.

4. This Court also requires to observe that the orders passed by the Collector and learned SSRD are required to be appropriately interfered with, more particularly since the learned Civil Court, which is the competent Court in that regard, had declared that the petitioners are owners and occupiers of the properties in question.

5. While the above being the view of this Court, on the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Satta would submit that the order of the learned Civil Court is subjected to challenge by preferring Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 2024 before the District Court at Anjar and is pending consideration. It is requested that till the Appeal is decided, the order passed by the revenue authorities may not be interfered. The request being completely unreasonable cannot be countenanced. Once the substantive rights are adjudicated by the Civil Court, unless the said judgment is stayed by the order of a superior Court, it would hold the field. Merely because an appeal is filed before the Appellate Court, would not dilute the decision of the Civil Court.

6. Thus, to this Court, it would appear that the only clarification required, while quashing the order passed by the Revenue Authority as noted hereinabove, is to observe that the final / interim order passed by the learned Appellate Court would be covering the rights of the parties in this regard.

                                                             Page 4 of 6

Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Tue Feb 04 2025                                   Downloaded on : Tue Feb 04 21:26:11 IST 2025
                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                               C/SCA/7820/2016                                 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025

                                                                                                              undefined

7. Having regard to the above observations, the impugned order passed by the Collector, Kutch, dated 10.07.2015 in consolidating Appeal No.75/2014 as well as order dated 23.03.2016 passed by the learned SSRD in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/Kutch/38/2015 are hereby quashed and set aside. The Revenue Authorities are directed to give appropriate effect to the order passed by the learned Civil Court i.e. the learned Additional Civil Judge, Anjar, dated 20.12.2023 in Regular Civil Suit No.359 of 2015 and Regular Civil Suit No.217 of 2016. It is further clarified that the above direction would be subject to interim / final the order that would be passed by the learned Appellate Court i.e. District Court, Anjar, in Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 2024 preferred by the respondent No.6 challenging the order of the learned Civil Court referred to hereinabove.

8. With this observations and directions, present petition stands disposed of as allowed. Interim relief granted earlier, stands vacated.

It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the substantive merits of the issues and whereas the learned Appellate Court shall decide Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 2024 independently on its merits.

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.10088 of 2024:

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Purohit for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondent State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the District Collector, Kutch, refusing to consider the application of the petitioners for grant of NA permission on the ground of pendency of Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.7820 of 2016.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7820/2016 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined

3. Considering that the above referred writ petition has been decided by this Court vide order of even date, the order passed by the Collector dated 15.05.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.

4. The petitioners are be at liberty to file an appropriate application for grant NA permission within 15 days from today and whereas upon such an application being preferred, the same shall be considered by the Collector, Kutch, within the statutory period strictly in accordance with law and without being influenced by the reasons, which weighed with him, while passing the order dated 15.05.2024.

With this direction and observations, present petition stands disposed of.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Y.N. VYAS Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Tue Feb 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 04 21:26:11 IST 2025