Gujarat High Court
Pravinkumar Vrajlal Sedani vs State Of Gujarat on 2 May, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11790 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
========================================================
PRAVINKUMAR VRAJLAL SEDANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHITRAJEET UPADHYAY WITH MR. KIRTAN H MISTRY(10012) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNJ KANARA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR. NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 02/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Chitrajeet Upadhyay with learned Advocate Mr. Kirtan Mistry on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara on behalf of respondent- State and learned Advocate Mr. Nishit Gandhi on behalf of respondent no.6.
2. By way of this petition the petitioner challenges order dated Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 22:33:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined 30.05.2009 passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department in Revision Application No. MVV/Gharkhed/RJT/1/07 more particularly whereby the order passed by the Collector, Rajkot dated 17.04.2007 has been confirmed.
3. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr.Upadhyay it would appear to this Court that the petition has a slightly checkered history.
3.1 It would appear that the petitioner had purchased the property in question i.e. land bearing survey no. 178 and 169 situated at Village: Nyara Taluka: Paddhari, District Rajkot vide sale-deed dated 16.06.1986 and whereas entry no. 686 qua the above sale had been mutated in the revenue record on 06.09.1986. It would appear that said entry had been taken up in suo motu proceedings by the Assistant Collector, Morbi more particularly alleging breach of Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance, 1949 and whereas vide an order dated 20.07.1991, the Assistant Collector had cancelled entry no. 686 and had directed the petitioner to be evicted from the land in question. It would appear that the said order had been challenged by the petitioner before the Collector, Rajkot by preferring Land Appeal No. 59 of 1994 and whereas the Collector, Rajkot vide order dated 04.03.1995, had confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector. It Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 22:33:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined would appear that the petitioner had challenged the same before the GRT by preferring Revision Application No. TEN/BR/9/1995 and whereas vide order dated 07.01.1997, the revision application preferred by the petitioner had been allowed and the order passed by the Assistant Collector, dated 20.07.1991 and order passed by the Collector, Rajkot dated 04.03.1995 were set aside and the matter had been remanded back to the Deputy Collector for appropriate decision as per the observations in the order in question. It would appear that again, vide an order dated 06.12.1997, the Deputy Collector had reiterated the earlier i.e quashing of entry no. 686 and whereas the petitioner was directed to be removed from the land as per the Section 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance, 1949. The petitioner had thereupon challenged the said order before the Collector, Rajkot and whereas vide an order dated 31.05.2003 in Land Appeal No. 20 of 1998, the Collector, Rajkot, had rejected the appeal preferred by the present petitioner and whereas the Deputy Collector, Morbi had been directed to ensure that the petitioner is removed from the land in question after taking appropriate steps under Section 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance, 1949. The petitioner had again challenged the same before the Special Secretary Revenue Department (SSRD) by preferring Revision Application No. MVV/JMN/RJT/14/2005 and whereas, the SSRD vide order dated 17.04.2006, had set aside the order passed by the Collector, Rajkot dated Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 22:33:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined 31.05.2003 more particularly directing the Collector to conduct the proceedings afresh. It would appear that the Collector, Rajkot had thereupon conducted Land Appeal No. 20 of 2009 - Remand Case No. 4 / 05-06 and again vide an order dated 17.04.2007, the Collector, Rajkot had reiterated the findings of the Collector, Rajkot in the earlier round of proceedings i.e vide order dated 31.05.2003. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order had approached the SSRD by preferring Revision Application No. MVV/Gharkhed/RTJ/2 of 2007 and whereas vide order impugned before this Court dated 30.05.2009, the SSRD having confirmed the order passed by the Collector dated 17.04.2007, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Upadhyay on behalf of the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to an order passed by a learned Co-ordinate Bench ( Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker- as his Lordships then was) in Special Civil Application No. 8419 of 1998. Learned Advocate would submit that the order in question was passed in case of a land which had been purchased by the petitioner and his brothers situated at Survey No. 147 Village Koyli, Taluka: Jodiya District: Jamnagar vide registered sale-deed dated 03.09.1985 for which a revenue entry no. 2099 had been mutated in the revenue record on 04.10.1985. Learned Advocate would submit that entry had been taken Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 22:33:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined up in suo motu revision by the Assistant Collector and whereas vide an order dated 22.05.1992, the said entry had been cancelled. Learned Advocate would submit that the proceedings had thereafter been challenged before the Collector and whereas the Collector had dismissed the revision application and whereas, in a revision before the GRT, the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector had been set aside. 4.1 Learned Advocate would submit that the order passed by the GRT setting aside the order of the Collector and the Deputy Collector had been challenged by the State by preferring Special Civil Application No. 8419 of 1998 and whereas it is in that matter that the order which is relied upon by the learned Advocate dated 26.03.1999 had been passed. Learned Advocate would submit that the issue in both the petitions were common, i.e. with regard to the status of the petitioner as an 'agriculturist'. Learned Advocate would submit that the learned Co-ordinate Bench in the said proceedings, had interfered with the decision of the State to take up entry in suo motu proceedings on the ground that such suo motu proceedings powers could not be exercised after an unreasonable period. Learned Advocate would draw the attention of this Court to the observation of the order whereby learned Co-ordinate has inter alia observed that any action which is required to be taken under the law must be taken within a reasonable time period and Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 22:33:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined whereas according to the learned Co-ordinate Bench, a delay of more that 5 years in issuing notice, and more than three years in approaching the High Court would be an action which cannot be justified. Paragraph no. 10 and 11 of the observation of the learned Co-ordinate Bench are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:
"10. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, contended that if the provisions of law were not complied with, the transaction could be said to be void and on that ground also, this is a fit case in which the petition requires to be entertained as otherwise object of the Act would be frustrated. But it cannot be ignored that any action which is required to be taken under law, must be taken within a reasonable period. If there is delay of more than five years in issuing notice and then again more than three year in approaching this court, it cannot be said that such an action can be justified.
11. In any view of the matter, it cannot be said that by allowing the revision application, the Tribunal has committed any error of law which requires interference by this court. I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed."
4.2 Learned Advocate would submit that having regard to the above findings, the learned Co-ordinate bench had refused to interfere with the order passed by the GRT. It is submitted by learned Advocate that the learned Co-ordinate Bench having taken a view that suo motu proceedings Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 22:33:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined could not be initiated after a substantially long period of time, in a similar proceeding, which was near about the same timeline as the proceedings in which this Court had passed order dated 26.03.1999, yet, the respondents without appreciating the purport of the order of this Court, had set aside the entry after an unreasonable delay of 5 years from the date of mutation and whereas it is submitted that the observations of this Court, in the above decision, would be binding on this Court more particularly since all other considerations remained the same. Learned Advocate would specifically submit that while the order had been passed in the year 1999, therefore, before the penultimate round of proceeding, the order had been relied upon by the petitioner before the Collector and later before the GRT, before the SSRD and whereas none of the authorities have given due regard to the observations of this Court. Having regard to such submissions learned Advocate would request this Court to allow the writ petition on the same considerations.
5. As against the same learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanana would vehemently oppose the present writ petition by submitting that the learned Co-ordinate Bench had rejected the writ petition only on the ground of delay and whereas there is no substantive findings by the learned Co- ordinate Bench as regards the status of the petitioner as an agriculturist.
Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 22:33:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined
Learned AGP would submit that in absence of such a specific finding by the learned Co-ordinate Bench, the said order would not be binding of this Court more particularly since there is no ratio laid down by the learned Co- ordinate bench. Having submitted as such, learned AGP would request this Court not to interfere.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record more particularly the orders referred to hereinabove, to this Court it wold appear that the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner are required to be acceded to. Such a conclusion being arrived by this Court on the ground that the facts before the learned Co-ordinate Bench and the facts before this Court are identical. It would appear that before the learned Co-ordinate Bench he Court, a parcel of land had been purchased by the petitioner and his brother in the year 1985 and whereas entry as regards the same had been mutated in the year 1985 and suo motu proceedings had been initiated in the year 1992 and whereas in the instant case, the property had been purchased in the month of September 1985 and entry thereof had been mutated in the month of June 1986 and entry thereof had been mutated in the revenue record in the month September 1986 whereas the notice for initiating suo motu proceedings had been initiated in the year 1991.
Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 22:33:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined
7. As per the observations of the learned Co-ordinate Bench in the decision referred to hereinabove, in case of the present petitioner himself, it would appear that this Court had come to a conclusion that issuing a notice for initiating suo motu proceeding after more than five years, could not be countenanced more particularly the same could not be treated as notice issued within reasonable time. To this Court it would appear that the said observation would apply on all fours to the facts of this case. To this court it would appear that when this Court in an identical situation in case of the very petitioner had taken a view that suo motu proceeding could not be initiated after a period of five years even if it were with regard to initiating proceedings against an entry on the ground of the petitioner not having the status of an agriculturist then the said observations of the learned Co- ordinate bench are required to be followed by this Court more particularly judicial discipline is required to be maintained by this Court since the facts of the case as observed by this Court are identical and relating to the same parties.
8. Hence to this Court it would appear that for the reasons given by the learned Co-ordinate Bench which are referred to hereinabove, the order passed by the SSRD, dated 30.05.2009 confirming the order passed by the Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 22:33:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined Collector, Rajkot dated 17.04.2007 are required to be quashed and set aside. Appropriate consequential action shall be taken by the State in this regard.
9. The petition stands disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) NIRU Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 22:33:33 IST 2025