Gujarat High Court
Chandrikaben Daughter Of ... vs State Of Gujarat on 29 August, 2023
Bench: Aniruddha P. Mayee
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/184/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 184 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18606 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 184 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE) NO. 2 of 2023
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 184 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO. 3 of 2023
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 184 of 2023
================================================================
CHANDRIKABEN DAUGHTER OF CHIMANLAL NANALAL PATEL AND WD/O MADANMOHAN
NAVINCHANDRA PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==============================================================================
Appearance:
MR DEVEN PARIKH, SR ADV with MR SHREYANG S VAYEDA(10917) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,2.1,2.2,3,4
MR SAURABH SOPARKAR, SR ADV with MS SHIVANGI J GUPTA(10542) for the Appellant(s) No. 4.1
for the Respondent(s) No. 4,4.1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR ARPIT P PATEL(5497) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MR ANSHIN DESAI, SR ADV with MR.PARTH CONTRACTOR(7150) for the Respondent(s) No. 7
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 4.1.1,4.1.2,4.1.3,5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 29/08/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
2. The appellants herein are challenging the interim
order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/184/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023
undefined
staying the operation of the order dated 06.08.2022 passed
by the Mamlatdar & ALT, on the premise that in the order
impugned, the Mamlatdar & ALT has returned a
categorical finding that fraud had been committed by the
writ-petitioners in getting the sale deed dated 02.11.1999
and the Entry No.7185, in the revenue records based on
the said sale deed. It is argued by the learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellants herein that the
remedy of filing statutory appeal against the order dated
06.08.2022 under Section 74 of the Gujarat Tenancy and
Agricultural Land Act 1948, against the order of the
Mamlatdar & ALT dated 06.08.2022 was available to the
writ-petition. In the said scenario, there was no
justification before the learned Single Judge to entertain
the writ-petition when specific objection was raised with
regard to the availability of the alternate remedy. Further,
with the support of the decision of the Apex Court in 2019
(14) SCC 449, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel
that any judgment or order, or decision of any competent
authority or even a revenue entry, which is a result of
fraud committed by a person, cannot be allowed to stand.
For the findings returned by the Mamlatdar in the order
dated 06.08.2022 about the fraud committed by the writ-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/184/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023
undefined
petitioners, there was no justification to pass the interim
order staying the effect of the order of the Mamlatdar,
whereby the land in question, subject matter of sale deed
dated 02.11.1999 has been restored back to the appellants.
3. Taking note of the above contentions of the learned
Senior counsel for the appellants, we may record that the
appellants herein are the vendors of the sale deed, subject
matter of consideration, pursuant to which the entry
No.7185 was made in the revenue records. The
proceedings under Section 84 (C) of the Tenancy Act 1948
had been initiated at the instance of the appellants herein
in the year 2019, on the ground that the
writ-petitioners/vendees of the sale deed dated 02.11.1999
were not agriculturists at the time of the execution of the
sale deed. The contention was that the sale deed dated
02.11.1999 was executed in breach of Section 863 of the
Tenancy Act 1948.
4. We may further record that in the year 2014, the
writ-petitioners/vendees of the sale deed had applied for
NA permission, at the time of consideration whereof,
objections were raised by the appellants herein, which
were rejected by the orders dated 08.01.2014 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/184/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023
undefined
31.01.2024 by the Collector. Those orders were challenged
before the Secretary and the revision came to be rejected.
The Special Civil Application No.21533 of 2017 filed
against the order of rejection of objection of the appellants
herein has also been dismissed.
5. We may also record that various other proceedings
are going on between the parties. The description with
regard to other proceedings initiated by the appellants
herein has been noted by the learned Single Judge in
paragraph No.'12' of the order impugned.
6. Be that as it may, it is more than evident that the
appellants herein who were vendors of the land in
question by virtue of the sale deed dated 02.11.1999, had
initiated proceedings against the writ-petitioners after a
period of 20 years on the premise that the sale deed was
outcome of fraud. Several rounds of litigation have already
been concluded between the parties. Further, on a query
made by the Court as to whether the appellants have filed
affidavit-in-reply/counter before the learned Single Judge,
it is intimated that some of the appellants have filed
counter whereas other are unrepresented till date.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/184/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023
undefined
7. In the said scenario, having noted the above and the
reasoning given by the learned Single Judge, we do not
find any good ground to entertain the instant appeal,
which is directed against the interim order passed by the
learned Single Judge, more so, in view of the fact that the
appellants have not submitted to the jurisdiction of the
learned Single Judge, till date.
8. As regards the plea of fraud, vehemently raised by
the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants,
sufficient to note that the said plea has to be established
by the appellants before the learned Court, wherein the
correctness of the findings recorded by the Mamlatdar &
ALT in the order impugned dated 06.08.2022 is to be
examined.
9. For all the abovenoted reasons, we do not find any
merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly,
dismissed. However, it is clarified that the observations
made by the learned Single Judge with respect to the plea
of fraud raised by the learned counsel for the appellants
while dealing with the interim application, would be
considered as prima facie appreciation at the interim stage,
itself. None of the said findings would come in the way of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/184/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023
undefined
the parties at the stage of the final disposal of the writ-
petition.
10. Before passing of this order, we may record that the
learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants undertake to file counters/affidavit-in-reply
before the writ-Court within a period of 10 days from
today. Two weeks time is granted to file rejoinder from
the date of filing of the affidavits/counters by the
appellants herein. We request the learned Single Judge to
make an endeavour to decide the matter as expeditiously
as possible.
11. In view of the order passed in the main matter, all
Civil Application do not survive and stand disposed of,
accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
Manoj Kumar Rai
