Gujarat High Court
Bandishbhai Kanubhai Patel vs Authorized Officer on 3 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10396/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10396 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
BANDISHBHAI KANUBHAI PATEL
Versus
AUTHORIZED OFFICER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. BK. RAJ(3794) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR RAKSHITKUMAR N PATEL(12486) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 03/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. B. K. Raj appearing for the petitioner, learned Advocate Mr. R. N. Patel for respondent No.3 and learned Advocate Mr. Mayur Kishanchandani for learned Advocate Mr. M. R. Bhatt for respondent No. 4. Though served, none appeared for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:28:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10396/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined
2. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"(7.1) May Your Lordships be please to issue a Writ Certiorari or Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, command order or direction to quash and set-aside the Impugned order dated 18/06/2018 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge of Vadodara in Misc. Civil Application no. 103/07 and also be pleased to pass an appropriate order to join the petitioner as one the respondent in Misc. Civil Application no. 103/07. (7.2) During the pendency of this petition for admission and final hearing, through an Ex-parte/Bi-parte Ad interim relief, May Your Lordships be please to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the Impugned order dated 18/06/2018 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge of Vadodara in Misc. Civil Application no. 103/07 and also be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Misc. Civil Application no. 103/07.
(7.3) May Your Lordships be please to grant any other relief which may be prayed at the time of the hearing in the interest of the real, complete and substantial justice and also be please to grant any other relief which may be fit and appropriate in the fact and circumstances of the case."
3. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE APPEAR TO BE THAT:
3.1. One Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 103 of 2007, filed by the Competent Officer under the provisions of under Section- Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:28:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10396/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined 11(5) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act 1962"), which is pending before the District Court, Vadodara. The said reference application appears to have been filed under the Act 1962 due to dispute between respondent No.2 & 3 in regards to entitlement of compensation so awarded by competent authority vide its award dated 01.01.2006 for loss of trees/crops standing on part of an agricultural land situated at Survey No. 950, Village : Padra, Dist : Vadodara, admeasuring 1757 sq. meters. (herein after referred as "subject land").
3.2. As per revenue record, subject land stood in the name of respondent No.2, whereas as per panchnama carried out, crops sowed by respondent No.3. It is undisputed that respondent No.2 & 3 are real brothers.
3.3. The impugned application of joining party in the aforesaid reference application filed by petitioner, below Exhibit 853, under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC, came to be rejected by the District Court vide its order dated 18th June, 2018, which is impugned in the present writ application. Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:28:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10396/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined
4. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
4.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Raj appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has purchased the subject land from respondent No. 2 by way of registered sale deed dated 20th March, 2011, thereby, stepped into the shoe of respondent No.
2. It is submitted that reference application being Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 103 of 2007 came to be filed by the Competent Authority under the Act 1962 for deciding the entitlement of award amount dated 1st January, 2006, between respondents No. 2 and 3 herein. It is further submitted that once the petitioner has purchased the subject land, he would be successor in interest for respondent No. 2 herein, thereby entitled to be joined in the reference.
4.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Raj would further submit that respondent No. 3 happens to be the real brother of respondent No. 2, objected to such sale deed before the Revenue Authority but remained unsuccessful in his attempt, inasmuch as Revenue Authority has certified the entry in favor of the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 having challenged the sale deed by way of Special Civil Suit No.370 of 2011 (New Special Civil Suit No.29 of 2018), which is pending for adjudication, Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:28:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10396/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined wherein, till date no stay has been granted in favour of respondent No.3 herein. It is further submitted that the Civil Court concerned has not yet set-aside such sale-deed, inasmuch as, the sale deed is neither stayed nor quashed. It is respectfully submitted that once the petitioner has purchased subject land from respondent No. 2 by way of registered sale deed, title of the subject land stood transferred in favour of the petitioner, who has direct interest in the immovable property in question -
subject land.
4.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Raj would respectfully submit that the District Court has committed serious error of law by rejecting the impugned application solely on the ground that the purchase of the subject land by the petitioner subsequent to the reference proceeding. It is submitted that the District Court has failed to consider the contents of the sale deed, wherein also, it was agreed between the seller and buyer i.e. respondent No. 2 and petitioner that in a case of any dispute arise at the instance of anyone, including government officials, in relation to any compensation, the seller will get it remove such objection and in that eventuality, if any expense borne by buyer, seller will reimburse to him. It is submitted that, considering the fact that Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:28:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10396/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined respondent No. 2 having not objected joining of the petitioner in the application, the impugned application for joining as party ought not to have been rejected by the District Court. 4.4. Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Raj would request this Court to allow the present writ application.
5. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3:
5.1. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Patel would vehemently submit that there is no error, much less any gross error of law, committed by the District Court while rejecting the impugned application. It is submitted that, undisputedly, the petitioner, by way of the so-called sale deed, purchased the subject land from respondent No. 2 in the year 2011, whereas the reference application filed in the year 2007, that too in relation to compensation for the damage to existing trees/crops at the relevant point of time.
5.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would respectfully submit that when respondent No. 2 in turn the petitioner, would not entitle to receive any compensation for which the reference made. So, the petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party to be joined in such reference proceeding.
Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:28:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10396/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined 5.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would further submit that the sale deed, which was executed by respondent No. 2 in favor of the petitioner, is the subject matter of Special Civil Suit No.370 of 2011 (New Special Civil Suit No.29 of 2018), which is pending for its adjudication. It is submitted that no sale consideration has been passed on to respondent No. 2 when the sale deed got registered. It is further submitted that the entire sale consideration was subsequently paid by the petitioner to respondent No.2, after getting compensation from land acquisition proceeding.
5.4. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would submit that when there is no valid sale in favour of the petitioner by respondent No. 2, in that circumstance also, the petitioner has no right to be impleaded as party in the reference application. It is respectfully submitted that what is to be decided in the reference application is the entitlement of the compensation between respondent No.2 & 3, thus, presence of the petitioner is not at all required having so purchased subject land after reference application.
5.5. Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Patel would request this Court to reject the present writ application. Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:28:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10396/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined
6. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.4:
6.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Mayur Kishanchandani appearing for respondent No. 4, would only submit that respondent No.4 is already deleted from the array of parties before the District Court and as such, being a formal party, nothing further requires to be submitted in the matter.
7. No other and further submissions are made.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
8. The short question falls for my consideration as to whether the petitioner is required to be joined in the reference application being Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 103 of 2007, or not? ANALYSIS
9. The facts which are observed hereinabove are not in dispute. It remains undisputed fact that due to dispute between respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who happens to be brothers in regards to entitlement of compensation in relation to the award dated 1st January, 2006, made by the Competent Authority under the Act 1962, in relation to damage to existing crops/trees in relation to the subject land, aforesaid reference application came to be filed by the Competent Authority Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:28:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10396/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined before the District Court, Vadodara. It also remained undisputed that by way of registered sale deed, respondent No. 2 sold the subject land in favor of the petitioner in the year 2011. It is also undisputed that respondent No. 3 has questioned the said sale deed by way of filing Special Civil Suit No.370 of 2011 (New Special Civil Suit No.29 of 2018) before the Civil Court concerned, which is pending, wherein there is no stay granted in favour of respondent No. 3 by Civil Court concerned. Thus, as on date, said registered sale deed in favour of petitioner stand, rather after its execution, it appears that he has received compensation amount for its acquisition. It also remained undisputed fact that revenue entry certified in favour of the petitioner by the competent Revenue Authority, though questioned by respondent No. 3, it remains unaltered, inasmuch as, respondent No. 3 has remained unsuccessful so far in disturbing such sale deed/revenue entry in any manner whatsoever.
10. When the petitioner purchased the subject land by way of registered sale deed, as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (herein after referred as "the Act, 1882), the title of the immovable property stood transferred in favor of Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:28:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10396/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined the petitioner. The District Court has neither considered such aspect nor taken pain to see the wording of the sale deed executed between respondent No. 2 and the petitioner. It is clearly mentioned in such sale deed (internal page Nos. 23 & 24 of sale deed) that as on the date of execution of the sale deed, there is no acquisition of subject land by any government authority and as such no notice so far received by respondent No. 2 from any government authority. Nonetheless, if there would any dispute arise as regards the subject land from any government authority, the same shall be removed by the seller i.e. respondent No. 2 at his costs, failing which, it is open for the buyer i.e. petitioner herein to remove it. It appears that respondent No.2 has not objected joining of petitioner in the subject reference application. So, prima facie, he is giving his implied consent in favour of petitioner to be joined and defend it, in accordance with law. It may be noted here that though served respondent No.2 chooses not to appear in this matter, which prima facie, shows that he is no longer interested to contest/prosecute the reference application rigorously having sold subject land. According to my view, when the petitioner purchased the subject land by way of registered sale deed may Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:28:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10396/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined be in the year 2011, he would step into shoe of respondent No. 2 and be entitled to be joined as party in the reference application in question, whereby he can very well represent the interest of respondent No.2.
11. At this stage, it would be apt to refer and rely upon the direct decision of the full bench of the Honorable Supreme Court of India in case of Razia Begum Versus Sahebzadi Anwar Begum reported in AIR 1958 SC 886, wherein held thus:
"[13] As a result of these considerations, we have arrived at the following conclusions:
(1) That the question of addition of parties under R. 10 of O. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the court, but of judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case; but in some cases, it may raise controversies as to the power of the court, in contradistinction to its inherent jurisdiction, or, in other words, of jurisdiction in the limited sense in which it is used in S. 115 of the Code;
(2) That in a suit relating to property, in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest, in the subject-
matter of the litigation;
(3) Where the subject-matter of the litigation, is a declaration as regards status or a legal character, the rule of present or direct Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:28:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10396/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the court is of the opinion that by adding that party, it would be in a better position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the controversy;
(4) The cases contemplated in the last proposition, have to be determined in accordance with the statutory provisions of Ss. 42 and 43 of the Specific Relief Act;
(5) In cases covered by those statutory provisions, the court is not bound to grant the declaration prayed for, on a mere admission of the claim by the defendant, if the court has reasons to insist upon a clear proof apart from the admission;
(6) The result of a declaratory decree on the question of status, such as in controversy in the instant case, affects not only the parties actually before the Court, but generations to come, and in view of that consideration, the rule of 'present interest', as evolved by case law relating to disputes about property does not apply with full force; and (7) The rule laid down in S. 43 of the Specific Relief Act, is not exactly a rule of res judicata. It is narrower in one sense and wider in another."
(emphasis supplied)
12. When the petitioner having direct interest in the immovable property, inasmuch as, purchased the subject land by way of registered sale deed, in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Full Court in the case of Razia Begum (supra), he would be entitled to be joined in the reference application. The District Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:28:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10396/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined Court has not appreciated the aforesaid aspect while rejecting the impugned application and erroneously observed that the petitioner being purchaser of the subject land subsequent to the reference proceeding, would not be necessary party to be joined in the proceeding.
13. According to my view, the right of entitlement to get compensation is to yet be decided in the subject reference application. But during the pendency of such reference proceeding, if respondent No.2 having sold the subject land, thereby, sold his interest in the subject land to third party i.e. petitioner herein, such subsequent purchaser cannot be estopped in law from joining in the reference application, especially when respondent No.2 who one of party claiming compensation not objected presence of the petitioner.
14. Thus, in view of aforesaid, I am unable to agree with the reasons so assigned by District Court while rejecting the impugned application.
15. So far as the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Patel that the sale deed in question is not validly executed, inasmuch as, no sale consideration was paid by petitioner to respondent Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:28:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10396/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined No. 2 when executed/registered the sale deed. Prima facie, such submission has no legs to stand, inasmuch as, as per the definition of sale given under Section-54 of the Act, 1882, even if sale consideration is promised to pay in future also constitute valid sale in law. Even it is not even a case of respondent No.2 that he has not received any sale consideration from the petitioner subsequent to registration of said sale deed, rather accepted sale consideration from petitioner subsequently on acquisition of subject land as confirmed by learned advocate Mr. Patel during course of his submission. At least, respondent No.3 cannot allow to raise such plea in this proceeding.
16. Nevertheless, to make the things clear, I would like to observe the definition of 'Sale' as provided under the Act, 1882 in relation to transfer of ownership of immovable property as under:
"54. "Sale defined":-
"Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
Sale how made. -
Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument.Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:28:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10396/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined In the case of tangible immovable property, of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property.
Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
Contract for sale. A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled, between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property."
17. In view of said definition and rights of seller so defined under Section 55 of the Act, 1882, who once conveyed title of the immovable property by way of registered sale deed in favour of its buyer, lost its title over the immovable property. As such, this Court is not like to further elaborate and give its reasoning on such submission, except given herein above, as the aforesaid suit filed by respondent No. 3 is writ large pending before Civil Court. This aspect requires to be adjudicated by the Trial Court concerned on getting appropriate evidence on record on the issue if any frame in this regards. Nonetheless, aforesaid observations made by this Court to deal with the submissions so made by learned Advocate Mr. Patel.
18. In light of the aforesaid, according to my view, the District Court has committed serious error of law, inasmuch as, Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:28:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10396/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined committed jurisdictional error by not exercising its power so vested in it by not allowing the impugned application. When this Court finds the impugned order erroneous, perverse and contrary to settled principles of law and so also not exercising its jurisdiction vested in it, in that fact circumstances, this Court requires to step into it and needs to interfere with such order, when exercised its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which I do so. [See - Waryam Singhvs vs. Amarnath,, reported in AIR 1954 SC 215 (para-13) & Bhudev Mallick alias Bhudeb Mallick and Another vs. Ghoshal and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 360 (para 53 to 58) : 2025 (1) GLH 553].
CONCLUSION
19. The upshot of the aforesaid observations, discussions and reasons, the impugned order dated 18th June, 2018, passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Vadodara, below Exhibit 853 in the reference application being Civil Misc. Application No.103 of 2007, is hereby quashed and set aside.
20. Consequently, the impugned application filed below Exhibit 853 in the reference application being Civil Misc. Application Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:28:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10396/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined No.103 of 2007 is hereby allowed, thereby, petitioner is permitted to be joined in the reference application being Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 103 of 2007. It is open for the petitioner to file his response/reply in the application.
21. After giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned, the District Court concerned shall decide the reference application being Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 103 of 2007 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
22. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present writ application is hereby allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) NILESH Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:28:35 IST 2025