Ajitbhai Ganpatbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 17084 Guj

      C/SCA/13160/2021                            ORDER DATED: 29/10/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13160 of 2021
==========================================================
                         AJITBHAI GANPATBHAI PARMAR
                                    Versus
                              STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR LALJI R MOKARIA(3085) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
MR KM ANTANI, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND
        KUMAR
        and
        HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT

                         Date : 29/10/2021
                          ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)

1. Petitioners who claim to be the owners of

the land bearing Survey Nos.838/1, 838/2, 840/1,

840/2, 841/1 and 839 admeasuring Hect.Aare.Sq.mtrs.

0-15-18, 0-14-16, 0-09-12, 0-26-30, 0-32-37 and 0-24-

28 respectively, of Mouje Savasi, Taluka and District

Vadodara, are seeking for the following reliefs :

"(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction directing the respondents in particular respondent Nos.1 and 2 to make payment of Rs.63,21,037/- to the petitioners, which has been illegally paid to the respondent no.4 herein by the respondent no.2 herein, with interest at market rate.

(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction directing the respondent nos.1 and 2 to make fishy inquiry

C/SCA/13160/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/10/2021

into the matter of mutation entry no.6895 dated 20.03.2018, certified on 23.05.2018, by which name of respondent no.4 - Natubhai Budhabhai Chauhan was fraudulently and illegally entered in collusion with the employees/officers of the office of the respondent no.1."

2. It is the contention of Shri Laljibhai

Mokaria, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners that respondent Nos.1 and 2 in collusion

with respondent No.4 has drawn the compensation of

the amount of Rs.63,21,037/- in respect of land

belonging to petitioners and said amount has been

disbursed on the basis of a revenue entry and

petitioners being the owners of the land are entitled

for the compensation and as such direction be issued

to the respondents to repay the said amount to

petitioners.

3. Per contra, Mr.K.M.Antani, learned

Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents would reiterate the averments made in the

reply affidavit filed and prays for dismissal of the

petition. He would contend that petitioners are

guilty of suppression of fact and as such, this Court

should refrain from exercising the extraordinary

C/SCA/13160/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/10/2021

jurisdiction and dismiss the petition at the

threshold itself. He would rely upon the judgment of

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of K.D.Sharma vs.

Steel Authority of India Limited and others, reported

in (2008) 12 SCC 481 in support of this contention.

4. Having heard the learned advocates

appearing for the parties and on perusal of the

prayers sought for in the writ petition, we are of

the considered view that grounds urged in the

petition are disputed questions of facts which cannot

be gone into in a petition filed under Article-226 of

the Constitution of India that too by holding a

roving inquiry to ascertain as to whether petitioners

are the owners of the property or fourth respondent

and as to whether there was any fraud perpetrated by

respondent No.4 as pleaded in the petition. The very

fact that petitioners are pleading that there is a

fraud played by respondent No.4 in collusion with

respondent Nos.1 and 2 is sufficient to hold that

petition under Article-226 would not be maintainable

and necessarily petitioners would have to work out

their right in a civil suit. Even otherwise, in the

C/SCA/13160/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/10/2021

instant case, the petitioners do not dispute that

respondent No.4 had filed an affidavit before the

Competent Authority on 28.11.2018 asserting his right

over the land in question. This fact of filing the

affidavit by the fourth respondent whereunder he

states that the petitioners have admitted to have

received the compensation to the extent of the land

for which they have a right. As to whether the

contents of the affidavit is admitted by the

petitioners or not would also not be in the scope of

these proceedings. However, the minimum that was

expected of the petitioners was to state in this

petition that such an affidavit had been filed by the

fourth respondent before the jurisdicational

authorities which they were aware of. This is no

doubt amounts to material suppression of fact as

stated by the Apex Court in the case of K.D.Sharma

(supra) referred to vide paragraphs-36 to 38.

5. In view of our finding recorded hereinabove

that petition is not maintainable for grant of

reliefs sought, same stands dismissed. However, we

reserve liberty to the petitioners to work out their

C/SCA/13160/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/10/2021

rights in accordance with law and no opinion is

expressed on the merits of the case.

(ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ)

(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) GAURAV J THAKER