Gujarat High Court
Amrutbhai Manchhabhai Garasia ... vs State Of Gujarat on 17 February, 2021
Bench: Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/SCA/11385/2006 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11385 of 2006
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11386 of 2006
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6340 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
===========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to No
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law No
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
================================================================
AMRUTBHAI MANCHHABHAI GARASIA SINCE DECEASED THROUGH
HEIRS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 other(s)
===============================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT(100) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.6.1,1.6.2,1.6.3,1.6.4
MR DHARMESH DEVNANI AGP (1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
MR.HARDIK B SHAH(3751) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 17/02/2021
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging legality and validity of the orders
C/SCA/11385/2006 JUDGMENT
passed by the Revisional Authorities below and as such, individual reliefs
claimed in the petitions are incorporated here under :
Special Civil Application No. 11385 of 2006
"(A) Your LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue
writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or
directions and be pleased to quash and set aside the
impugned (1) common order dated 26042006 passed
by the respondent No.1 in R. T. S. Revision Case No. 74
of 2004, (2) order dtd. 22012002 passed by the Ld.
Dist Collector Surat in RTS/REVISION CASE
NO./17/2000 qua the petitioner.
(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this
petition Your LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the
impugned order dated 26042006 passed by the
respondent No.1 in R. T. S. Revision Case No. 74/2004
& 131 of 2005 and order dtd. 22012002 passed by
the Ld. Dist Collector Surat in RTS/REVISION CASE
NO./17/2000 qua the petitioner.
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any
other and further orders in the interest of justice."
Special Civil Application No. 11386 of 2006
"(A) Your LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue
writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or
directions and be pleased to quash and set aside the
impugned (1) common order dated 26042006 passed
by the respondent No.1 in R. T. S. Revision Case No.
131 of 2005, (2) order dtd. 22012002 passed by the
Ld. Dist Collector Surat in RTS/REVISION CASE
NO./17/2000 qua the petitioner.
(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this
petition Your LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the
impugned order dated 26042006 passed by the
respondent No.1 in R. T. S. Revision Case No. 74/2004
& 131 of 2005 and order dtd. 22012002 passed by the
Ld. Dist Collector Surat in RTS/REVISION CASE
C/SCA/11385/2006 JUDGMENT
NO./17/2000 qua the petitioner.
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any
other and further orders in the interest of justice."
Special Civil Application No. 6340 of 2009
"(A) To issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the
nature of mandamus or writ of certiorari or writ in the
nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned
order dated 31.5.2008 (AnnexureDD) and order dated
16.12.2008 (AnnexureFF).
(B) To grant such other and further relief as
may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest
of justice."
2. When the matters are taken up for hearing, learned
advocate Mr. N. V. Gandhi appearing for the petitioners has vehemently
contended that the Revisional Authority while passing the impugned
common order has not considered the written submissions canvassed
before him by the petitioners and though the said written submissions
are forming part of the record, it appears that the same has not been
dealt with at all and no reasons are recorded to that effect. It has further
been pointed out that no fair opportunity of hearing was extended to the
petitioners and had it been given, the petitioners ought to have pressed
into service the written submissions at the time when actual hearing
must have been afforded and as such, he has requested that by quashing
and setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1,
direction be issued to give a fresh look to the proceedings and after
extending full opportunity to the parties to the proceedings, fresh order
be passed in accordance with law after assigning proper reasons.
C/SCA/11385/2006 JUDGMENT
2.1 One additional submission has also been made that the
revenue authorities have exercised the powers after gross unreasonable
period, but be that as it may, the order impugned is reflecting non
application of mind as the contentions have not been dealt with at all.
3. In so far as Special Civil Application No. 6340 of 2009 is
concerned, learned advocate Mr. Hardik Shah appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that this petition is basically against the refusal
of interim order which has been passed by the learned Secretary
(Appeals) reflecting on page 245 of petition's compilation and the said
order is passed without application of mind and without extending any
opportunity to the parties to the proceedings and as such, such a non
reasoned order which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice
may not be allowed to stand in the eye of law and simultaneously, a
request is made that main Revision Application No. 42 of 2008, if
pending, may be expeditiously dealt with and decided in accordance
with law.
4. Therefore, in the present proceedings, both the learned
advocates appearing for the petitioners have jointly submitted with
consent that the orders in question be quashed and set aside for passing
a fresh order in accordance with law after extending proper opportunity
to the parties to the proceedings.
5. To this submission, learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr. Dharmesh Devnani appearing on behalf of the State authorities has
broadly submitted that the authority will readily consider fresh points
which may be submitted by the petitioners before it and will extend
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and will pass a fresh order in
accordance with law and as such, has also requested that the matter may
be remanded back after quashing the orders impugned.
C/SCA/11385/2006 JUDGMENT
6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and having gone through the material on record, the orders impugned in
the petitions and the fact that both the learned advocates have given
their consent to set aside the orders since the orders in question are in
violation of principles of natural justice, this Court is of the opinion that
if the respondent authorities are directed to give a fresh look to the issue
in question and extend full opportunity to the petitioner concerned and
the parties to the proceedings, the same would meet the ends of justice.
Since learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties have
requested the Court not to express any opinion on merits and not to
assign any reason in detail, this Court without assigning any detailed
reasons would like to dispose of the petitions on the following lines:
6.1 Impugned common order dated 26.04.2006 passed by
respondent No.2 authority in Special Civil Application Nos. 11385 of
2006 and Special Civil Application No. 11386 of 2006 is hereby quashed
and set aside with a specific direction that the respondent authority will
grant fresh opportunity to the petitioners and the parties to the
proceedings and after considering their respective submissions, a
reasoned order be passed strictly in accordance with law.
6.2 In so far as Special Civil Application No. 6340 of 2009 is
concerned, with the consent of learned advocates, the impugned order
reflecting on page 245 of petition's compilation by virtue of which
interim relief request has been turned down in main Revision
Application No. 42 of 2008 is hereby quashed and set aside with a
direction to respondent No.1 authority to grant fresh opportunity to the
parties to the proceedings and shall pass afresh order in accordance with
law by assigning adequate reasons and will hear and dispose of the main
Revision Application No. 42 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible. Since
the issue between the parties appears to be long drawn litigation, it is
expected that the respondent authority shall pass afresh order in
C/SCA/11385/2006 JUDGMENT
accordance with law as well as expeditiously as possible. By that time,
since learned advocates have given consent and requested the Court to
dispose of the present petitions on the aforesaid lines, both the parties to
maintain status quo as regards the possession and title of the land in
question.
7. With the above observations and direction, the present
petitions stand allowed with no order as to costs.
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
cmk
