Gujarat High Court
Musla Allarakhiben Vaghaji D/O. ... vs State Of Gujarat on 7 December, 2021
Bench: A. P. Thaker
C/SCA/6056/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6056 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
MUSLA ALLARAKHIBEN VAGHAJI D/O. VAGHAJI BHIKHAJI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. DHWANI TRIPATHI, AGP (1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER
Date : 07/12/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged
impugned order passed by respondent no.1 dated
21.5.2016 to the extent that it provides for initiation of
proceedings within three months for the alleged transfer
of land without prior permission.
C/SCA/6056/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/12/2021
2. The brief facts of the case are that land bearing
Survey No.30/9/C.1 admeasuring 8-61-88 Hectare-Are-
sq.mtrs. being Nondh No. 348 is in possession of the
petitioner and by order dated 8.11.1996 possession came
to be regularized on certain terms and conditions. On
8.1.1997, respondent no.4 has got power of attorney
executed in his favour and on that basis transferred the
subject land in his favour and has issued necessary receipt
thereof. Proceedings came to be initiated for breach of
terms and conditions of allotment order on the ground
that allottee has transferred the land by way of power of
attorney to respondent no.4 and he, in turn, has also let it
on rental basis to other company and, ultimately,
Collector, Banaskantha, passed an order in 2008 and
ordered to vest the land in Government and, in the same
order, he has granted the land to the petitioner by
imposing token fine of Rs.1/- and re-granted the same to
her. Against that order, respondent no.4 filed Revision
before respondent no. Special Secretary, who partly
allowed it and order of vesting the land in Government
came to be confirmed and it was directed to initiate
necessary proceedings against the petitioner.
3. Heard Mr.N.K.Majmudar, learned advocate for the
petitioner and Ms.Tripathi, learned AGP for the
respondent-State.
4. Learned advocate, Mr.Majmudar has reiterated the
C/SCA/6056/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/12/2021
same facts which are narrated herein above. While
referring to various documents, he has submitted that
respondent no.4 has no locus standi to file revision against
the order passed by the Collector re-granting the land in
favour of the petitioner, as he has earlier filed Civil Suit
No.41 of 2007 before learned Principal Civil Judge,
Amirgadh, for a declaration as to his becoming owner of
land by adverse possession and for permanent injunction,
which came to be dismissed by learned Civil Judge on
25.5.2017 holding that the land in question is government
land. According to Mr.Majmudar, respondent no.4 could
not establish his rights towards the land and the Collector
has re-granted the land to the petitioner herein. Order of
the Collector re-granting land in question is proper one,
which ought not to have been set at naught by the SSRD,
directing to vest the land in question in Government and
that too in a revision petition filed by a person, who has no
locus standi. He has also submitted that no opportunity of
being heard was given to the petitioner by SSRD in the
said Revision Peition. In view of these submissions, he has
prayed to allow present petition.
5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused
the material on record. It appears from record that initially
the land was granted to the petitioner herein. It also
appears that she has executed power of attorney in favour
of respondent no.4, which is ultimately cancelled by public
notice, as reflected in the order of the Collector as well as
C/SCA/6056/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/12/2021
of SSRD. It is also undisputed fact that the Collector has
found that there is no breach of condition and, therefore,
he at the first stage ordered that the land to be vested in
Government and in the same order he has re-granted land
to the petitioner by imposing token fine of Rs.1/-, by
following the policy of the Government as the petitioner is
belonging to downtrodden section of the society. It
appears that conditions for re-grant of land by the
Collector are in consonance with law. It also appears from
record that respondent no.4 has filed Civil Suit No.41 of
2007 for establishing his right over the suit land and
declaring him as an owner of the suit land (page 16 of the
compilation). Judgment rendered therein is also placed on
record, which clearly shows that respondent no.4 could
not establish his right and ultimately the suit filed by
respondent no.4 came to be dismissed by the Civil Court.
Thus, the civil rights pertaining to the land has not been
proved by respondent no.4 before the Civil Court. Later,
the revenue authority has re-granted the land in favour of
the petitioner by imposing token fine of Rs.1/-. Order of
the Collector has not been challenged by the petitioner by
filing revision.
6. It is pertinent to note that respondent no.4 has no
locus standi as his suit has already been dismissed by the
Civil Court. Therefore, he has preferred Revision
Application, wherein no notice was issued to the petitioner
and without affording an opportunity of being heard,
C/SCA/6056/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/12/2021
impugned order has been passed, whereby SSRD has
directed to initiate proceedings within three months. Thus,
it clearly appears that the order of Collector, Banaskantha,
is legal and valid and order passed by respondent no.1 is
not tenable in the eyes of law and same deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
7. In view of above, present petition is allowed. Order of
respondent no.1 dated 21.5.2016, to the extent that it
provides for initiation of proceedings of breach of terms
and conditions, is hereby quashed and set aside. Order of
Collector dated 22-23/4/2008 is hereby confirmed. Rule is
made absolute to the above extent.
No order as to costs.
Direct service is permitted.
(DR. A. P. THAKER, J)
SAJ GEORGE
