Manrao Rasiklal Jaiswal vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 2341 Guj

     C/LPA/142/2016                                          ORDER DT. 15.02.2021
               MANRAO RASIKLAL JAISWAL VersusSTATE OF GUJARAT& 20 other(s)




           IN THEHIGHCOURTOF GUJARATAT AHMEDABAD


1.              R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 142 of 2016
                               In
            R/SPECIALCIVILAPPLICATIONNO. 30703of 2007

                                       With

2.              CIVILAPPLICATION(FORSTAY) NO. 1 of 2016
                                In
               R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 142 of 2016

                                       With

3.             CIVILAPPLICATION(FORORDERS) NO. 1 of 2017
                                In
               R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 142 of 2016

                                       With

4.       CIVILAPPLICATION(FORAMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2019
                              In
              R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 142 of 2016

                                       With

5.      CIVILAPPLICATION(FORDIRECTION) NO. 2 of 2017
                             In
             R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 142 of 2016

                                       With

6.      CIVILAPPLICATION(FORDIRECTION) NO. 2 of 2019
                             In
             R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 142 of 2016

                                       With

7.      CIVILAPPLICATION(FORAMMENDMENT) NO. 3 of 2019
                             In
             R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 142 of 2016

                                       With


                                     Page 1 of 7

                                                                  Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 09:32:24 IST 2022
             C/LPA/142/2016                                          ORDER DT. 15.02.2021
                      MANRAO RASIKLAL JAISWAL VersusSTATE OF GUJARAT& 20 other(s)


8.             CIVILAPPLICATION(FORAMENDMENT) NO. 5 of 2017
                                    In
                    R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 142 of 2016

==============================================================================
                              MANRAO RASIKLAL JAISWAL
                                       Versus
                             STATEOF GUJARAT& 20 other(s)
==============================================================================
Appearance:
KOMALM PATEL(8153)for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVANCECOPYSERVEDTO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99)for the Respondent(s)No.
1
MRAS ASTHAVADI(3698)for the Respondent(s)No. 11,12,13,14,15,16
MRPARTHIV B SHAH(2678)for the Respondent(s)No. 10,5,6,7,8,9
MRPURVISHJ MALKAN(3511)for the Respondent(s)No. 17
MRSHAKTI S JADEJA(5491)for the Respondent(s)No. 19,20,21
MRSP MAJMUDAR(3456)for the Respondent(s)No. 19,20,21
RULESERVED(64)for the Respondent(s)No. 1,18,2,3,4
==============================================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
        and
        HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                       Date: 15/02/2021

                            ORALORDER

(PER: HONOURABLEDR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)

1. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 24.02.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of Special Civil Application No.30703 of 2007 (Manrao Rasiklal Jaiswal v. State of Gujarat & 20). The operative part of the order passed by the learned Single Judge for ready reference is as under :-

22. This petition being a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The contents and the prayers in the writ is distinct under Article 227 and 226 of petition the Constitutio. Therefore, this petition can be said to be a petition under

C/LPA/142/2016 ORDER DT. 15.02.2021 MANRAO RASIKLAL JAISWAL VersusSTATE OF GUJARAT& 20 other(s)

Article 227 of the Constitution in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Himalayan Co.op Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh, reported in (2015)7 SCC

373. All these new pleas and their cardinality have been looked into by this Court, and therefore, supervisory jurisdiction of this Court does not permit this Court to go beyond the scope, I have gone and dealt with though beyond the each and every aspects raised before this Court and the scope of interference dehors statutory provision cannot be exercised and the petition will have to fail.

23. In view of amendment to section 70-A, which is amended in the year 2014, under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Act, the Government of Gujarat after the Deputy Collector's order, has felt to take any proceeding under section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act and when the finding is that the respondents no. 5 to 10, may be, through the power of attorney holder, are bonafide purchasers of the property, which was declared to be a property of old tenure, in view of interregnum period, cannot be found fault with. The Tribunal's declaration holding them to be the bonafide purchasers has to be accepted. The findings of facts under Article 227 of the Constitution, unless they are perverse, cannot be interfered with and I do not find that the same are perverse, on the contrary, I can hasten to say that the petitioner had also accepted the amount of Rs. 3.5 crores which is still lying with him and had never deposited the same with the Trial Court. Be that as it may. While going through the record, it is found that the mutation entries are made in the name of the respondents,

C/LPA/142/2016 ORDER DT. 15.02.2021 MANRAO RASIKLAL JAISWAL VersusSTATE OF GUJARAT& 20 other(s)

and therefore also, the order cannot be found fault with.

24. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed. It goes without saying that the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the objections before the Collector, as permitted under the law. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.

(K.J. THAKER, J.)

::FURTHER ORDER::

25. After the judgment is pronounced, Ms. Jani learned advocate for the petitioner makes request to stay the operation of this a judgment for a period of 4 weeks, as the interim order has continued for a long time. Mr. Sanjanwala learned senior counsel, on instructions, states that, as such, they will pursue the remedy before the Collector or concerned authority, and therefore, as such, the interim relief may not be extended as it would take considerable long time for the Collector to decide their application, and as this Court has permitted the petitioner to raise all possible objections before the Collector. Once it is held that the petitioner has no right as there was no basic foundation even in the memo before the Tribunal, I do not think that the status-quo order which was granted by this Court should be continued any further, as status-quo would mean that this court is recognizing the prima-facie right of the petitioner who has miserably failed in establishing pleadings even befre the authorities concerned, and therefore, the request made by Ms. Jani learned advocate for the petitioner to stay the operation of this judgment could not have been granted by

C/LPA/142/2016 ORDER DT. 15.02.2021 MANRAO RASIKLAL JAISWAL VersusSTATE OF GUJARAT& 20 other(s)

this Court as I have left liberty to the petitioner, which, as such, he has never claimed, despite that, that prayer has also been granted, and therefore, the request of Ms. Jani learned advocate for the petitioner to stay the operation of this judgment, is rejected. However, the Civil Suit instituted by the children along with other civil Suits, which are still pending before the trial Court, will be decided on its own merits ."

2. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant though the name of learned Counsel Mr. Komal M. Patel is shown in the cause list. Learned Counsel Mr. Parthiv B. Shah appears for the Purchaser - respondents No.5 to 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the purchaser of the property under the Registered Sale Deed submitted that the Counsel for the appellant has avoided appearance not on one but on several ocassions. He has further submitted that since the matter was remanded to the learned Collector by the learned Single Judge and liberty was given to the petitioner to raise all objections therein, therefore there is no merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. He also submitted that the learned Single Judge also noticed that certain Civil Suits have also been filed by the petitioner challenging the various Sale Deeds executed in favour of the Respondent No.5 to 9 and under which a compromise was also arrived. However, the matter went up to the Supreme Court and though the appellant had accepted a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- Rupees Three Crores Only with interest from these purchasers but they have never refunded back that amount, but, have also assailed the said Compromise in the Trial Court.

C/LPA/142/2016 ORDER DT. 15.02.2021 MANRAO RASIKLAL JAISWAL VersusSTATE OF GUJARAT& 20 other(s)

3. Having heard learned Counsels for the Respondents, as nobody is present on behalf of the appellants, we are of the opinion that impugned order of learned Single Judge dated 24.02.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.30703 of 2007 does not require any interference, as the matter has only been sent back to the lower authority, namely, the District Collector to hear the objections, if any, on part of the petitioner-Appellant, also and decide the proceedings. It appears that only because of the interim order dated 03.03.2016 granted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the present Letters Patent Appeal No.142/2016, the proceedings before the learned District Collector could not proceed further and the matter is still pending with the District Collector in the aforesaid manner.

4. Since the lower authorities (Collector and Lower Courts) in Civil Suits may be seized of the matter as noted by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any reason to keep the present Letters Patent Appeal pending before this Court. We are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal and the matter may be decided by the District Collector, now in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties before him.

5. Learned Counsel Mr. Shakti S. Jadeja appears for the private Respondent No.19 - Minor Pruthvik Manrao Jaiswal, Respondent No.20 - Minor Hetawi Manrao Jaiswal and Respondent No.21 - Anjali Manrao Jaiswal. He submits that they support the case of the Appellant for whom learned Counsel Mr. Komal Patel does not appear. He also submitted that they have no objection to sale in

C/LPA/142/2016 ORDER DT. 15.02.2021 MANRAO RASIKLAL JAISWAL VersusSTATE OF GUJARAT& 20 other(s)

favour of the Respondent No.5 to 9, represented by learned Counsel Mr. Parthiv B. Shah.

6. Since we have already observed that objections, if any, on part of these appellant/s or respondents represented by Mr. Shakti S. Jadeja can be raised before the District Collector, we cannot entertain such submission in the present Letters Patent Appeal at this stage.

7. The Civil Applications are also accordingly disposed of. No costs.

Sd/-

(DR. VINEETKOTHARI,J)

Sd/-

(GITAGOPI,J) Caroline