Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat Special ... vs Bhupendrasinh Banubha Jadeja on 25 October, 2021
Bench: Mauna M. Bhatt
C/LPA/65/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 65 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16624 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 65 of 2021
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT SPECIAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
(DISPUTES)
Versus
BHUPENDRASINH BANUBHA JADEJA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR K.M. ANTANI, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 25/10/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT)
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed challenging the Oral
Judgment dated 13.02.2020 rendered by the Learned Single
Judge in Special Civil Application No.16624 of 2017.
2. Considering the issue involved, this Intra Court Appeal lies on
a narrow compass, it is taken up for final disposal, at the
admission stage by consent of learned Advocates.
3. In the Oral Judgment dated 13.02.2020, the learned single
Judge while allowing the petition has quashed and set aside the
C/LPA/65/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/10/2021
order dated 17.06.2017 passed by the Special Secretary
Revenue Department (hereinafter referred to as 'the SSRD') in
Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/Kutch/22/2017 and order
dated 10.03.2017 of the District Collector.
4. We have heard learned AGP Mr. K.M. Antani for appellant
State (nos.1, 2 and 3). It is contended by the learned AGP that
the Learned Single Judge has erred in quashing the order dated
17.06.2017 of the SSRD and order dated 10.03.2017 of the
District Collector, on the following grounds.
(i) That the subject land, upon verification
was found to be government waste land and
therefore the subject entry could not be mutated.
Having come to know about the said facts, the
District Collector initiated suo motu proceedings
on the proposal forwarded by the Deputy
Collector, Anjar on 29.05.2012. That the
respondents herein (original petitioners) failed to
produce documentary evidence in relation to
ownership over the land bearing survey no.496 of
Village Shinay, Taluka Gandhidham, District
Kutch, admeasuring Acres 16.00 Gunthas.
(ii) That having come to know about the said
mutation entry, immediately proceedings were
initiated, therefore, the finding in relation to delay
in initiation of proceeding by District Collector
may not be taken adversely.
(iii) That the learned single judge without
going into the merits has decided the petition only
C/LPA/65/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/10/2021
on the ground of delay.
He therefore prayed to allow the Letter
Patent Appeal.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned AGP and
perused the records on hand and we do not deem it fit to issue
notice to the respondents. In our considered opinion, Judgment
of the Learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2020, would not call
for interference, rendered in Special Civil Application
No.16624 of 2017 for the following reasons:
(a) The learned single judge in para 6 and 7 of his order has
recorded the sequence of entries in respect of the subject land,
mutated in favour of the respondents herein. From the said
sequence it is borne out that the respondents herein are in
possession as occupants of the land in question uninterruptedly
since the year 2009.
(b) The respondents herein have also availed crop loan,
electricity connection to the land in question and revenue
records came to be mutated by entry no.8305 and no objection
has been raised by the appellants at relevant time.
Subsequently, the land admeasuring Acres 2.00 Gunthas has
been sold in favour of the respondent no.2 under a registered
sale deed dated 07.12.2010 by respondent no.1, pursuant to
which entry no.4918 dated 18.05.2010 has been made in the
revenue record and same stood certified way back as on
C/LPA/65/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/10/2021
17.08.2010.
(c) The District Collector has initiated suo motu proceedings
by taking into consideration, the entry nos.702, 814, 3074 and
4676, from which Revenue Entry No.702 is mutated in the
revenue record on 18.12.1986.
(d) From a plain reading of the show-cause notice dated
23.11.2015, it can be seen that notice is issued to the
respondents by exercising powers under the provisions of Rule
108 (6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972, whereby the
respondents have been called upon to show cause as to why a
revenue entry certified almost 30 years ago should not be set
aside, which on the face of it is arbitrary. The SSRD and
Collector have passed unreasoned orders without taking into
consideration the objections raised by the respondents herein.
6. We have also noticed that reliance placed by the Learned
Single Judge on the decision of the Apex Court in case of
Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Ors. reported in (2007) 5 SCC 211, is correct, tenable and
squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
7. In view of the findings recorded by learned single judge as
also the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in case of
Pune Municipal Corporation (Supra) in our considered
C/LPA/65/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/10/2021
opinion, no interference is called for in the impugned Oral
Judgment of Learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2020 rendered
in Special Civil Application No.16624 of 2017. Therefore,
present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. In view of the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal, the Civil
Application No.1 of 2020 (For Stay) does not survive and the
same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ)
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
URIL RANA
