Ranjanben Ravjibhai Hirpara vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 6882 Guj

     C/SCA/139/2021                               ORDER DATED: 24/06/2021




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 139 of 2021

==========================================================
                      RANJANBEN RAVJIBHAI HIRPARA
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
M/S.VYAS ASSOCIATES(1559) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR HARIN N PUAR(10447) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,11,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR ROHAN SHAH, AGP (1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE UNSERVED(8) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
SERVED BY RPAD (N)(6) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

                            Date : 24/06/2021

                              ORAL ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner praying, inter alia, that:-

"25(A) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or other appropriate writ, order or directions by restraining the respondent authorities from segregating the subject lands as vesting in the Government under the Act, 1960 from the lands to be retained by the landowner.

(B) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or other appropriate writ, order or directions by quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.08.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector, Gondal so far as it purports to effect lands bearing Survey No.345/1/paiki & 345/1/paiki 2 with consequential directions.

(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the order dated 27.08.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector, Gondal, so

C/SCA/139/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2021

far as it purports to effect lands bearing Survey No.345/1/paiki & 345/1/paiki 2.

(D) ...."

2. At the outset, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner was not a party in the proceedings being No.JMN/VASHI/A.L.C./278/2020, wherein the order was passed on 27.08.2020 which is impugned before this Court. The effect of the same is being given to the land belonging to the petitioner on the premise that the land of the petitioner belonged to the same original owner of the land in question in connection of which the impugned order has been passed.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that it was big parcel of land, wherein several purchasers have jumped in by executing various documents. The petitioner was also one of them, who came into possession of this property under registered sale-deed, which was recorded in the revenue record. Some of such individuals had filed petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No.11063 of 1994, which came to be disposed of vide judgment and order dated 06.07.2018. Learned advocate for the petitioner specifically drew attention of this Court to the modalities to be followed, as directed by the Court. It is submitted that despite this direction, the revenue authorities are now applying the outcome of the exercise undertaken in case of those petitioners even to the present petitioner though the petitioner has never been heard in this regard.

4. Learned AGP appearing for the respondent-State raises preliminary contention of an alternative remedy available and non joinder of the party, as the petitioner has challenged the

C/SCA/139/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2021

order dated 27.08.2020, but, none of the private parties before the authorities are joined as party respondents.

5. Considering the submissions made by both the sides to the limited extent as above and considering the documents on record, the Court is of the view that the cause of action for challenging the order dated 27.08.2020 in the petition has not arisen, as the exercise as contemplated by this Court in its judgment dated 06.07.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.11063 of 1994 reportedly is not undertaken in the case of the petitioner. The apprehension of the petitioner, if any, to the extent of applying the order dated 27.08.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector to the lands belonging to the petitioner, at this stage, could be considered as premature.

6. At this stage, at the request of learned advocate for the petitioner, it is observed that it is open for the petitioner to approach the Collector by filing an appropriate representation raising his grievance including the grounds raised in present petition and the Collector may decide such representation within stipulated time after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

With aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.

It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter.

(A.Y. KOGJE, J) GIRISH