Heirs Of Decd. Ranjitsinh Bhimsinh ... vs The Collector, Gandhinagar District
2024 Latest Caselaw 1208 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Heirs Of Decd. Ranjitsinh Bhimsinh ... vs The Collector, Gandhinagar District on 12 February, 2024

Author: Nirzar S. Desai

Bench: Nirzar S. Desai

                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




   C/SCA/8123/2023                                   ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

                                                                                     undefined




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8123 of 2023
                          With
    R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15826 of 2023
=====================================================
      HEIRS OF DECD. RANJITSINH BHIMSINH VAGHELA
            BHUPENDRASINH RANJITSINH VAGHELA
                         Versus
          THE COLLECTOR, GANDHINAGAR DISTRICT
=====================================================
Appearance:
SUDHANSHU A JHA(8345) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4
MR NIKUNJ KANARA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                       Date : 12/02/2024

                       COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. By way of these two petitions, the petitioner

has challenged two almost identical orders

passed in Review C.A. No.28 of 2015 and Review

C.A. No.29 of 2015 by the Gujarat Revenue

Tribunal.

2. The prayer made in Special Civil Application

No.8123 of 2023 reads as under :-

" A. YOUR LORDSHIP'S may kindly be pleased to admit and allow the present appeal from order;

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

B. YOUR LORDSHIP'S may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 14.12.2022 passed in review application being Review/CA/28/2015; and further be pleased to quash and set-aside the order dated 06.07.2015 passed in Revision Application No.19 of 2001 by the Ld. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal; At Annexure-'A'

C. YOUR LORDSHIP'S may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside the order of the Ld. Collector in Ganot Appeal /SR/128 of 1992 dated 06.02.1993; and further be pleased to quash the order of the Ld. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in revision application no.358 of 1993 dated 23.12.1998; and further be pleased to quash and set-aside the order of Mamlatdar

- ALT in case no.231 dated 14.04.1962; At Annexure-'B'

D. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Ld. Mamlatdar & ALT - Gadhinagar to redecide the price for purchase of land pursuant to the order of Ld. mamlatdar - ALT in Ganot case no.738 of 1985 by the father of the petitioner;

E. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to maintain the status quo of land in possession of the petitioner being Land survey no. 667, 668, 807/1 ad 809 at Moje Piplaj, Taluka and Jilla - Gandhinagar;

F. To pass such other and further order/s necessary in the interest of justice."

3. Whereas prayer made in Special Civil Application

No.15826 of 2023 reads as under :-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

"A. YOUR LORDSHIP'S may kindly be pleased to admit and allow the present appeal from order;

B. YOUR LORDSHIP'S may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 14.12.2022 passed in review application being Review/CA/28/2015; and further be pleased to quash and set-aside the order dated 06.07.2015 passed in Revision Application No.18 of 2001 by the Ld. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal; At Annexure-'A'

C. YOUR LORDSHIP'S may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside the order of the Ld. Collector in Ganot Appeal /SR/128 of 1992; and further be pleased to quash the order of the Ld. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in revision application no.358 of 1993 dated 23.12.1998; and further be pleased to quash and set-aside the order of Mamlatdar - ALT in case no.231 dated 14.04.1962; At Annexure-'B'

D. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to maintain the status quo of land in possession of the petitioner being Land survey no. 667, 807/1 and 809 at Moje Piplaj, Taluka and Jilla - Gandhinagar;

E. To pass such other and further order/s necessary in the interest of justice."

4. Essentially, the facts of the case is same

however, two different petitions are filed as

stated by learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Jha

appearing for the petitioner, in respect of two

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

different survey numbers and therefore, both the

matters were taken together as the facts are

identical. Special Civil Application No.8123 of

2023 is filed in respect of land bearing survey

No.807/1 and 807/2 whereas Special Civil

Application No. 15826 of 2023 is preferred in

respect of land bearing survey No. 667 and 668.

Though in the entire petition nowhere the

description of land is mentioned, upon a query

from this Court, learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu

Jha, pointed out from the record that Special

Civil Application No.15826 of 2023 is in respect

acre 32 gunthas and survey No.668, admeasuring 1

acre 21 gunthas of Village Piplaj, Taluka

Gandhinagar whereas Special Civil Application

No.8123 of 2023 is in respect of land bearing

survey No.807/1, admeasuring 0 acre and 16

gunthas and survey No.807/2, admeasuring 0 acre

and 15 gunthas.

5. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu

Jha places on record a chart of relevant dates

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

as well as draft amendment dated 12.2.2024 and

requests that the draft amendment may be granted

and facts of the petition may be stated from a

sheet titled as relevant dates and whatever is

stated in the petition may not be considered and

facts may be stated from the aforesaid relevant

dates, hence, while dictating this order, facts

of the petition are stated from the aforesaid

relevant dates.

6. It is the case of the petitioner as canvassed by

learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Jha that all four

survey numbers were in the possession of father

of the petitioner in the year 1956-1957 and

therefore, the father of the petitioner was

declared as tenant and relevant revenue entries

were mutated to that effect in the year 1966.

The purchase of the land bearing survey No.667,

807/1, 807/2 and 809 were made ineffective vide

order dated 8.10.1976, as the father of the

petitioner could not pay the purchase price of

the land, however, according to the petitioner,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

the possession of the land remained with the

father of the petitioner.

7. On 21.12.1983, the Government published a

Government Resolution for those tenants who

could not pay the purchase price of the land

earlier and to ensure that those tenants may be

able to purchase the land, for giving one more

chance, the aforesaid Government Resolution was

published on 21.12.1983. As per the aforesaid

Government Resolution, the last date for

submitting the application was 31.12.1986.

8. The land in question was allotted in favour of

father of the petitioner as the petitioner made

an application pursuant to 1983 Government

Resolution and the area of land was less than

four acre and hence, three parcel of land

bearing survey Nos.667, 807/1 and 809 were

allotted to the petitioner on a condition that

the purchase price of the land would be paid

within a period of one month from the date of

order and the land would be subject to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

restrictions of Section 43.

9. Accordingly, vide order dated 4.2.1986, a

purchase price was also fixed by the Mamlatdar

and vide order dated 10.6.1986, land bearing

survey No.809 of the village was recorded in the

name of the petitioner, as according to the

petitioner, the purchase price was paid.

According to the petitioner, in the year 1987,

in respect of land bearing survey No. 807/1

also, some order was passed in favour of the

father of the petitioner and accordingly, entry

was also mutated in the revenue record and

certified by the competent authority.

10. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.12.1990,

the Deputy Collector took suo-motu revision in

respect of order dated 17.1.1986 and quashed the

order dated 17.1.1986 passed in favour of the

petitioner and remanded back the matter to the

Mamlatdar and ALT under Section 32 PPP for

carrying out inquiry under Section 32 PPP.

11. The remand proceedings were de-registered

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

vide order dated 31.5.1993 by Mamlatdar and ALT,

Gandhinagar on the ground that pursuant to an

order dated 1.6.1964, making the purchase of

land ineffective, the landlord of the land

carried that order and that litigation was

pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and

therefore, the case was de-registered vide order

dated 31.5.1993, till the litigation before the

Gujarat Revenue Tribunal could be over.

12. In the meantime, the landlord challenged

the order dated 11.4.1962 by way of proceedings

being Tenancy Appeal No.SR/128/1992 wherein the

petitioner was not a party and that appeal was

also rejected by the Deputy Collector, Land

Reforms (Appeal) Gandhinagar vide order dated

6.2.1993 and the landlord namely Ishwarji

Shivaji Vaghela who was deceased at the relevant

point of time through his legal heirs preferred

the tenancy appeal and the legal heirs

thereafter challenged the aforesaid order passed

by the Deputy Collector dated 6.2.1993 by way of

a tenancy Appeal being TEN/BA/358/1997. Even

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

during pendency of the aforesaid revision

application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal,

the respondent No.2 namely A. B. Sankarji Hiraji

died on 17.7.1998 and the revisionist legal

heirs of late Ishwarji Shivaji Vaghela could not

brought on record the legal heirs of deceased

respondents and therefore, the aforesaid

revision application was abated vide order dated

25.12.1998.

13. The petitioner preferred two different

revision applications being revision application

No.TEN/BA/18/2001 and 19/2001 in respect of two

different parcel of land as stated in foregoing

paragraph and challenged the order dated

6.2.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land

Reforms (Appeal) wherein the petitioner was not

even a party and there the original landlord was

shown as respondent in the aforesaid revision

application. The aforesaid revision application

was rejected by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide

order dated 6.7.2015 wherein one of the ground

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

of rejection was that the petitioner could not

pay the purchase price at the relevant point of

time and hence vide order dated 8.10.1976 the

sell was made ineffective.

14. Against the aforesaid order dated 6.7.2015,

the petitioner preferred two revision

applications being revision application No.28 of

2015 and 29 of 2015 and both the review

applications being TEN/CA/28/2015 and 29 of 2015

were rejected vide order dated 14.12.2022 and

hence, the petitioner has preferred this

petition.

15. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Jha

appearing for the petitioner in both the

matters. Though learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu

Jha kept insisting and pointing out the fact

that the petitioners were tenant in respect of

land in question and pursuant to 1983 Government

Resolution, the petitioners were entitled to

purchase the land in question for which the

purchase was made ineffective vide order dated

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

8.10.1976. He submitted that pursuant to his

application, on the basis of 1983 Government

Resolution, out of five parcel of land over

which the tenancy right was claimed by the

petitioner, only one parcel of land being survey

No.809 was allotted to the petitioner and for

which a certificate under Section 32M also was

issued to the petitioner. He submitted that upon

remand vide order dated 10.12.1990 though the

order dated 17.1.1986 was quashed which was in

favour of the petitioner, once the remand

proceedings commenced, on account of challenge

to the original order of 1962 about which in

response to a pertinent and specific query from

the Court, learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Jha

candidly submitted that he or his client is

unaware about the order passed in 1962 and

therefore, he is not in a position to say

anything about what was under challenge by way

of challenge to 1962 order. Be that as it may,

once the remand proceedings were initiated, in

view of the challenge to 1962 order by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

original landlord, the remand proceedings never

taken place and the proceedings were de-

registered. Thereafter, the original landlord

preferred an application before the Gujarat

Revenue Tribunal being TEN/BA/358/1997 which was

abated by vide order dated 23.12.1998 and

therefore, the petitioner without waiting for

remand proceedings to end, straightway

challenged the aforesaid order whereby the

proceedings were abated before the Gujarat

Revenue Tribunal by way of two revision

applications No.18 of 2001 and 19 of 2001 and

upon failing in those challenge, preferred two

revision applications and as even the revision

applications were also rejected, the petitioner

is before this Court.

16. According to learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu

Jha, the petitioner had paid the purchase price

pursuant to 1983 order in respect of all five

parcel of lands and therefore, the only

formality remained at the relevant point of time

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

was to hand over the possession of land in

question and to issue certificate under Section

32M in favour of the petitioner.

17. According to learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu

Jha, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has committed

an error by rejecting the petitioners revision

application solely on the ground that vide order

dated 8.10.1976, the sale in favour of the

petitioner had become ineffective and therefore,

the petitioners case was not considered by the

Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and therefore, though

the petitioner is entitled to have the remaining

three parcels of land, the petitioner could not

get it and therefore, this petition is

preferred. No other submissions were made by

learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Jha nor any

judgments were cited by learned advocate Mr.

Sudhanshu Jha.

18. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.

Nikunj Kanara appearing for the respondent -

State vehemently opposed the petition and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

submitted that in fact the present petition is

nothing but a classic example of speculative

litigation as by passage of time upon realizing

the fact that the land prices are escalated

as land in question is situated at Gandhinagar

District which is the capital of State, the

petitioner after showing inability to purchase

the land in question in 1976 tried to revive his

right over the land in question which were given

up by the petitioner in 1976 itself by

preferring revision application in the year

2001.

19. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.

Nikunj Kanara pointed out that though remand

proceedings were de-regisered by passing a

specific order dated 31.5.1993 by the Deputy

Collector, Land Reforms, the petitioner neither

challenged the aforesaid order nor as can be

seen from the record made any attempt to see

that the original remand proceedings are revived

and the matter proceeds on its own merit.

Instead even without knowing that what 1962

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

order was, the petitioner preferred a revision

application challenging the abatement order

dated 23.12.1998 passed in revision application

No.358 of 1997 preferred by the landlord. The

petitioner did not make any attempt to see that

even that aforesaid revision application is

decided expeditiously and though the same was

decided on merit, preferred a review application

in 2015 and upon failing in the said review

application in 2022, though the petitioner does

not have any locus in respect of land in

question for which two petitions are preferred,

the petitioner has challenged those orders

passed in review applications.

20. According to learned Assistant Government

Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara, by making aforesaid

challenges to the original order of 1962 as well

as order dated 8.6.1992, the petitioner wants to

keep his rights/challenge in respect of land in

question alive and thereby, to overcome the

vital aspect of delay as the petitioner had

already given up all his rights by showing his

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

inability to purchase the land in question way

back in the year 1976.

21. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.

Nikunj Kanara also pointed out that in two bulky

petitions of more than 140 pages, the petitioner

could not produce a single receipt whereby

pursuant to 1983 Government Resolution, the

petitioner's application was considered and the

petitioner had paid the purchase price and

therefore, the receipt is issued.

22. According to learned Assistant Government

Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara, at no point of time,

the petitioner paid the purchase price of the

land pursuant to 1983 Government Resolution and

therefore, no receipts are produced. In absence

of there being any evidence of making payment in

respect of land in question, there is no right

of the petitioners in respect of land in

question.

23. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.

Nikunj Kanara further points out that the only

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

order in favour of the petitioner pursuant to

1983 Government Resolution was dated 17.1.1986

passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT and even that

order also was quashed by the Deputy Collector

vide order dated 10.12.1990. He submitted that

pursuant to order dated 10.12.1990, even the

remand proceedings were also de-registered vide

order dated 31.5.1993 and thereafter, the

petitioner has not made a single attempt to

revive those proceedings and therefore, the

Gujarat Revenue Tribunal was right in dismissing

the petitioners revision application as well as

review application vide order dated 7.6.2015 as

well as order dated 14.12.2022. He therefore

prayed for dismissal of both the petitions

preferred by the petitioners.

24. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu

Jha appearing for the petitioners and learned

Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara

appearing for the respondent - State. Though

both the sides have made lengthy submissions in

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

respect of the respective claim over the land in

question as well as to discard the aforesaid

claims, however, fact remains that despite

arguing the matter for almost one and half hour,

learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Jha could not

point out a single document whereby he could

show that the purchase price of the land in

question and more particularly in respect of

four parcels of land bearing survey No.667, 668,

807/1 and 807/2 is ever paid by the petitioners.

Not only that, the petitioners also could not

point out that even a single attempt was made by

the petitioners to revive the remand proceedings

before the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar

pursuant to the order of de-registering the

remand proceedings dated 31.5.1993.

25. Though the petitioner challenged the order

whereby the proceedings of revision application

No.358 of 1997 pending before the Gujarat

Revenue Tribunal were abated by preferring

subsequent revision application No.18 of 2001

and 19 of 2001, upon query from the Court,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Jha either from

record or from information taken from the client

could not point out that what was the subject

matter of challenge in those revision

applications as the petitioner is completely

unaware about the challenge to 1962 order that

what 1962 order was. Not only that, the

petitioner also could not point out that at the

relevant point of time, considering the 1983

Government Resolution, when petitioner was

allotted the land bearing survey No.809 and the

land in question in respect of four different

survey numbers were not allotted to the

petitioner, whether any order was passed in

favour of the petitioner or not and if any order

was passed, whether petitioner has paid the

purchase price or not as no receipt of payment

of any amount towards the purchase price of land

bearing survey No. 667, 668, 807/1 and 807/2 are

on record. The only document that was repeatedly

shown to the Court was an acknowledgment by

Mamlatdar, which also does not anywhere state

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8123/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

that any amount is paid by the petitioner.

26. In absence of there being any documentary

evidence in favour of the petitioner whereby

either any right is created in favour of the

petitioner or that the petitioner at any point

of time had paid any purchase price of the land

in question as well as considering the fact that

the petitioner had already lost its right as the

sale in favour of the petitioner had become

ineffective in the year 1976 vide order dated

8.10.1976, I don't see any error committed by

the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in rejecting the

revision applications as well as review

applications by way of two impugned orders in

these petitions. Resultantly, these two

petitions are required to be dismissed and the

same are dismissed.

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)

Pallavi