State Of Gujarat vs Smt.Savitrirani Atmaprakash ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2625 Guj

    C/SCA/12122/2013                                     ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12122 of 2013
                                With
          CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2020
          In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12122 of 2013
==========================================================
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
                             Versus
         SMT.SAVITRIRANI ATMAPRAKASH GROVER & 4 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DILIP L KANOJIYA(3691) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR VISHAL K SEVAK(5237) for the Respondent(s) No. 2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 5
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,4
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

                                 Date : 29/03/2023

                                  ORAL ORDER

1.Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Rashesh Sanjanwala with learned advocate Mr.Aadit Sanjanwala for respondent no.3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Krutik Parikh for the petitioner no.1.

2.By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the State Government has challenged the order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (for short 'the GRT') in Revision Application No.TEN/BA/827/1994 whereby the GRT has

C/SCA/12122/2013 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023

ordered to quash and set aside the order dated 01.02.1994 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in Tenancy Case No.10 of 1993 as well as the order dated 23.05.1994 passed by the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Appeal No.5 of 1994 directing the respondents to pay the premium by making an application before the Collector as on the date of 11.03.1987 along with the interest at the simple rate of interest of 12%.

3.The brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1 The respondent No.1 to 3 had purchased the land bearing block No.110, Sutrel, revenue survey No.76, Taluka at Mauje Vagra, District Bharuch admeasuring 6 hectare - ARE. The respondent purchased the said land by registered deed dated 11.3.1987 from the respondent No.2 and entry with respect to the same was effected in the revenue record vide entry No.1353 dated 11.3.1987.

3.2 The Mamlatdar and ALT initiated the proceedings under section 84 (c) of Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act of 1948. By way of order dated 1.2.1994 passed in Tenancy

C/SCA/12122/2013 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023

case No.10 of 1993, the said land was vested in the State of Gujarat.

3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, the respondent No.1 to 3 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Bharuch being Tenancy Appeal No.5 of 1994. The Deputy Collector after considering all the relevant records, vide order dated 23.5.1994 quashed and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT and remanded the matter to initiate the proceedings under section 84 (c) (2) of the said act.

3.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 23.5.1994, the respondent No.1 to 3 preferred the Revision Application before the GRT being Revision Application No.TEN/BA/827/1994. The Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 21.8.2009 allowed the Revision Application filed by the respondent No.1 to 3 and quashed and set aside order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT passed in tenancy case No.10 of 1993 and order passed by the Deputy Collector, Bharuch in tenancy appeal No.5 of 1994 and

C/SCA/12122/2013 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023

directed to accept the premium of the respondent No.1 to 3 after considering the position on 11.3.1987.

3.5 It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of filing the revision application by respondent No.1 to 3 learned Tribunal passed an interim stay order by way of order dated 17.8.1994.

3.6 The Mamlatdar and ALT has already issued notice to the respondent on 6.10.1994 for breach of provision of the said Act. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

4.The respondent has also preferred Civil Application No.1 of 2020 with a prayer to direct the authorities to compute and collect the premium payable for conversion of the land in question as per the prevailing market value and to issue necessary orders removing the restrictions of Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act').

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader

C/SCA/12122/2013 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023

Mr.Krutik Parikh for the petitioner submitted that the State Government has no objection to accept the premium at market value in view of the Government Circular dated 17.03.2017 however the petitioner may be directed to approach Mamlatdar for verification and issuance for removal of restrictions under Section 43 of the Act and pass necessary order under Section 84(C) of the Act.

6.Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Sanjanwala for the respondent no.3 submitted that the GRT in the impugned order relying upon the earlier orders passed by the GRT, categorically has given a finding that the respondents are agriculturists in respect of the other parcels of land which are owned buy the respondents. He referred to and relied upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 wherein the orders passed by the GRT dated 29.06.2006 in Revision Application No.TEN/BS/105/1996, Order dated 11.04.2007 in Revision Application No.TEN/BS/ 255/1995, Order dated 29.09.2006 passed in Revision Application No.TEN/BS/134/2006 and order dated 29.06.2006 in Revision Application No.TEN/BS/150/1996 are required. It was submitted that the respondents have

C/SCA/12122/2013 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023

accepted the fact that the impugned transaction by which the land in question purchased in the year 1987 was of new tenure land and therefore it was in violation of the provision of Section 43 of the Act. It was submitted that however, in view of the Government Circular dated 17.03.2017 such transaction can be regularized by the respondents by making payment of premium on the basis of the present market value of the land in question in terms of the said circular and accordingly the respondents have preferred the Civil Application for showing readiness for payment of premium at present market value so as to regularize the transaction of the purchase of the land in question in the year 1987 and the restrictions put by the competent authority under Section 43 of the Act is required to be removed by accepting the premium by the Collector.

7. Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, as well as the circular dated 17.03.2017, the Collector is directed to compute the premium payable by the respondents on the basis of the present

C/SCA/12122/2013 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023

market value of the land in question as per the terms of the circular dated 17.03.2017 within a period of two weeks from today and communicate the same to the respondent no.3. The order passed by the Collector shall also contain that on applicability of the circular dated 17.03.2017 the impugned transaction of the year 1987 shall be regularized on acceptance of the premium.

8.The objection raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Parikh is not tenable in view of the fact that the respondents are in agreement that the there is breach of Section 43 of the Act and therefore the respondents are agreeable for making the payment of premium on the basis of the present market value instead of the market value of the land in question of the year 1987, therefore there is no need to direct the respondent to approach the Mamlatdar for any purpose.

9.The order of the GRT is confirmed subject to the modification to the effect that the respondents are subjected to payment of premium on the basis of the present market value of the land in question.

C/SCA/12122/2013 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023

10. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is discharged. Direct service is permitted. In view of the order passed in the main matter, Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) URIL RANA