Gujarat High Court
Dhirubha Agarsinh Rana vs State Of Gujarat on 16 June, 2021
Bench: Vineet Kothari, B.N. Karia
C/LPA/1466/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
DHIRUBHA AGARSINH RANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1466 of 2013
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2948 of 1997
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
==================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to
the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
==================================================================
DHIRUBHA AGARSINH RANA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s)
==================================================================
Appearance:
MR SN SHELAT, SR. ADVOCATE
with MR VIKAS V NAIR(7444) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SOHAM JOSHI, AGP for the Respondent-State.
MR RS SANJANWALA, SR. ADVOCATE
with MR SUNIL S JOSHI(2925) for the Respondent(s) No. 4.1
==================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 16/06/2021
Page 1 of 6
Downloaded on : Fri Jun 18 01:46:07 IST 2021
C/LPA/1466/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
DHIRUBHA AGARSINH RANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s)
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the Order dated
24.10.2013 / 25.10.2013 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the
Special Civil Application No.2948 of 1997 Dhirubhai Agarsinh Rana
vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
2. Having heard the learned counsels, we are of the opinion that the
matter would require remand back to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal who
decided the Revision Application filed by the Appellant-Petitioner on
30.7.1993 upholding the Order passed by the First Appellate Authority
namely, the Dy. Collector (Prant Adhikari) who also dismissed on
28.2.1988 the First Appeal filed by the Appellant-Petitioner against the
Order of the Mamlatdar dated 18.1.1985, by which, the land in question
was resumed to the State under Section 84C of the Gujarat Tenancy Act.
3. The sale by the Respondent No.4 namely, Ishwarbhai Mohanbhai
Patel who was represented by his widow Smt. Revaben ,who later on is
represented by her Legal Representatives Kantibhai Ishwarbhai Patel etc.
and who are Respondent No.4 before us, sold the land in question to the
present Appellant-Petitioner Dhirubhai Agarsinh Rana under the Sale
Deed dated 26.7.1982 and Mutation Entry with regard to that was made
on 9.10.1982.
4. However, the Mamlatdar initiated suo moto proceedings in
Tenancy Case No.4530 of 1984 and on the ground that the Appellant-
Petitioner Dhirubhai Agarsinh Ranan was not an Agriculturist. The
Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Mamlatdar on the ground that
the land in question was within the prescribed limit of 5 Miles or 8
Kilometers as then prescribed under the Tenancy Act, which, law was
C/LPA/1466/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
DHIRUBHA AGARSINH RANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s)
later on amended and the said limit of 5 Miles or 8 Kilometers was
removed and that amendment of 1995 was made retrospective.
5. Learned senior counsel Mr. S.N.Shelat, with Mr. Vikas Nair for the
Appellant has argued before us that it is true that the original Partition
Deed of Agricultural land between the 5 brothers of which Appellant-
Petitioner Dhirubhai Agarsinh Rana was one and he was a member of the
family, was not produced before the First Appellate Tribunal but the same
was produced for the first time before the learned Single Judge and also
before this Court in the present Letters Patent Appeal, the said Partition
Deed was executed in 1958 and consequent mutation entries were made
in the Revenue Record which were produced before Dy.Collector
indicates that the Appellant-Petitioner Dhirubhai Agarsinh Rana got some
part of the agricultural land and since the limit of territory in the form of
5 Miles or 8 Kilometers was removed by amendment of law
retrospectively, therefore, his status as being an Agriculturists could not
have been denied by the authorities below. But, since the sale in favour
of the Appellant-Petitioner has been held to be violative of Section 63 of
the Act and land in question has been forfeited by the Mamlatdar Vide
Order dated 18.1.1985, the matter deserves to be re-examined by the
learned Tribunal in the light of the said evidence in the form of Partition
Deed and consequent revenue entries which prove the status of the
Appellant-Petitioner being an Agriculturists.
6. Learned Government Counsel was unable to rebut this contention
about the non-consideration of the Partition Deed of 1958 by the
authorities below. He however, submitted that the authorities below have
concurrently held against the petitioner that he was not an agriculturalist
and therefore the sale was in violation of Section 63 of the Act and
therefore resumption of the land or forfeiture thereof in favour of the
State was proper.
C/LPA/1466/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
DHIRUBHA AGARSINH RANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s)
7. There is another angle to the dispute which we may not be required
to touch, is a Civil Suit filed by the present Appellant-Petitioner namely,
for recovery of the sale consideration as the sale in his favour was held to
be illegal and violative of Section 63 and which Suit was decreed to the
extent of Rs. 20,20,491/-. The said Civil Suit was decreed in favour of
the Appellant-Petitioner on 28.3.2001 against one Defendant M/s.
Jayshree Development Corporation who seems to have acquired some
right in the land in question, which is subject matter of the present
controversy.
8. We are of the opinion that the authorities below as well as the
learned Single Judge, with respects, have erred in ignoring a significant
evidence in the form of a Partition Deed which prima facie indicates that
the Appellant-Petitioner was an Agriculturist within the meaning of the
Tenancy Act and the sale in question is his favour under the Sale Deed
dated 26.7.1982 could not have been held to be void ab initio or illegal
atleast for the reasons assigned by the authorities below. Since the law
was amended to ignore the territorial limit of 5 Miles or 8 Kilometers for
the land to be treated as agricultural land or otherwise, therefore, this
could not have been a ground to ignore the sale in favour of the
Appellant-Petitioner.
9. This aspect of the matter seems to have not been properly
appreciated by the authorities below and negligence on the part of the
Appellant-Petitioner to have produced the Partition Deed itself before the
authority below in the first instance namely, before the Mamlatdar while
he passed the Order on 18.1.1985 also cannot be a ground enough to
ignore the sale. However, if the said documents can be produced and
proved in accordance with law and these documents of the contemporary
period duly registered and on the basis of which the mutation entries were
C/LPA/1466/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
DHIRUBHA AGARSINH RANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s)
made in the revenue record, the revenue authorities cannot be permitted
to ignore the same altogether and failure on the part of the Appellant-
Petitioner to produce the same in the first instance before the Mamlatdar
cannot be allowed to over shadow these documents.
10. The quest of justice or quest of truth cannot be prematurely killed
merely because of slight negligence on the part of the party or their
Advocate to produce the relevant documents at the relevant point of time
and the revenue authorities are not absolved of their duty to go deeper
and summon such record from the concerned authorities of the Revenue
Department itself, namely, their counter parts and give due credence to
the same and consider the effect of the same in accordance with law. That
having not been done, to us it appears that a serious miscarriage of justice
has resulted in the present case.
11. Therefore, we are left with no other alternative but to restore the
matter back to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal to consider the entire matter
afresh and pass fresh orders in accordance with law after giving the
opportunity of hearing and opportunity to the parties to lead proper
evidence on both the sides.
12. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and the
Order of learned Single Judge dated 24.10.2013 / 25.10.2013 dismissing
the Special Civil Application No.2948 of 1997 as well as all the three
orders passed by the Revenue Authorities below, namely, the Order of
Mamlatdar dated 18.1.1985, Order of the Dy. Collector Appeals (Prant
Adhikari) dated 28.2.1988 and that of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated
30.7.1993, are set aside.
13. The parties in the first instance without any further notice may
appear before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 15.7.2021 and a copy of
C/LPA/1466/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
DHIRUBHA AGARSINH RANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s)
this Order may be sent to the said learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal
forthwith and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing and
allowing proper evidence in the matter, the learned Tribunal may pass
fresh appropriate reasoned orders again de novo in accordance with law
without being influenced by any observations made by us in this order
within next period of 6 months, as the matter otherwise pertains to a very
old period.
14. With these observations, the Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J)
(B.N. KARIA, J)
NAIR SMITA V.
