Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Manibhai Desai(Deceased ... vs Dy. Collector (J. S.) on 11 January, 2024
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2399/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2399 of 2000
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
RAMESHBHAI MANIBHAI DESAI(DECEASED LITIGANT) & 1 other(s)
Versus
DY. COLLECTOR (J. S.) & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2.2
MR. ROHAN SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DHIRENDRA MEHTA(458) for the Respondent(s) No. 2.1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 11/01/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order
dated 31.01.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector, Surat in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2399/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
Tenancy Appeal No. 138 of 1996 whereby the Deputy Collector,
Surat quashed and set aside the order dated 09.01.1978 passed in
proceedings No. 32G/58/77 in respect of land situated at Mouje
Bahre, Taluka : Valod, admeasuring 1 acre 32 gunthas sitauted at
Survey no. 377 Block No. 433 of the aforesaid village which is
already vested into the Government as well as the order dated
12.11.1999 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department
(Appeals) whereby he partly allowed the Revision Application No.
SRD-ST-TENANCY-1 of 1997 preferred by the present
petitioners and though he confirmed the order dated 31.01.1997,
learned Deputy Secretary passed an order by modified the earlier
order passed by the Deputy Collector to the extent of initiating the
proceedings under section 32 P by directing to initiate the
proceedings under section 84 (C) of the Bombay Tenancy Act for
breach of the provision of section 27 of the Act.
2. Being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid two
orders, the petitioners have preferred this petition.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta appearing for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2399/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Rohan Shah appearing for the
respondent no. 1 - State and learned advocate Mr. Dhirendra
Mehta appearing for the respondent no. 2.1.
4. The facts of the case can be summarized as under:-
4.1. The deceased Manibhai Gopalbhai and Ichchhaben and
Sampatbhai were holding the land bearing Survey No. 373 Block
No. 433 admeasuring 6 Acres 34 Gunthas situated at Village:
Buhari, Taluka : Valod, District : Surat. According to the facts
stated in this petition, one Gajraben Wd/o. Manibhai Dahyabhai
was the tenant of the said land and hence her name was mutated
vide entry no. 773 dated 25.08.1948. As she was a tenant under the
Tenancy Act, the proceedings under section 32G were initiated
between the Gajraben Wd/o. Manibhai Dahyabhai and the landlord
and owner of the deceased Sampatbhai by virtue of Tenancy Case
No. 800, the aforesaid proceedings became ineffective vide order
dated 13.01.1967 and again the proceedings under Tenancy Act
under the provisions of section 32P were initiated. However, the
same was also dropped vide order dated 30.03.1974. Thereafter,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2399/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
again as per the amended provision under section 32P proceedings
under section 32G were initiated by Tenancy Case No. 58 of 1977
between deceased Gajaraben and owner of the land - Manibhai
and Ichchhaben and thereafter, Gajaraben was declared as deemed
purchaser under the provision of the Bombay Tenancy Act of the
land in question vide order dated 06.01.1978. Accordingly the
purchased price of the land was determined and the same was paid
as per the provision of the Act and a certificate under section 32 M
also was issued in favour of Gajaraben and the Revenue Entry No.
2652 was mutated.
4.2. The said Gajaraben expired on 08.11.1981 and thereafter by
virtue of a will executed by deceased Gajaraben in the name of
present petitioners - Rameshbhai Manibhai Desai was mutated
vide entry no. 2775 dated 29.05.1982. According to the petitioners,
after lapse of almost 18 years, the Tenancy Appeal No. 138 of
1996 was initiated by the Deputy Collector, Surat by alleging that
the land bearing Block No. 433 was not in possession of Gajaraben
Manibhai as tenant and it was in possession of 3rd party namely
Manilal Ambelal and thereby, the order passed in favour of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2399/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
Gajaraben Manibhai dated 06.01.1978 was required to be
cancelled and the same was accordingly cancelled vide order dated
31.01.1997 by the Deputy Collector, Surat in Tenancy Appeal No.
138 of 1996. The present petitioners challenged the aforesaid order
dated 31.01.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector, Surat in
Tenancy Appeal No. 138 of 1996 on a number of grounds wherein
one of the ground raised by the petitioners was that at the time
when the proceedings of Tenancy Appeal No. 138 of 1996 were
initiated, the petitioners were not joined as a party though, they
were in possession of the land and they become the owner of the
land in question by virtue of will of deceased Gajaraben, they were
not made party to the aforesaid proceedings and therefore, the
order dated 31.01.1997 is passed without following the 0principles
of natural justice and therefore, the same was required to be
quashed and set aside.
4.3. However, in the Revision Application No. SRD/ST/TENANCY/
1/1997, despite the aforesaid contention raised by the petitioners,
the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) confirmed
the order dated 31.01.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector, Surat.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2399/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
However, while partly allowing the revision application, the
Deputy Secretary modified the order passed by the Deputy
Collector and directed for initiation of the proceedings under
section 84 (C) in respect of land in question for breach of section
27 of the Act. Hence, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated
29.10.1999 passed by the Deputy Collector (Appeals), Revenue
Department, the present petition is preferred.
5. Once the petition was preferred, the Coordinate of this Court vide
order dated 03.04.2000 while issuing notice passed an order
directing the parties to maintain status quo till the next date of
hearing.
6. The record indicates that despite the aforesaid order of status quo
which was initially extended from time to time but thereafter, the
Coordinate Bench vide order dated 14.08.2000 issued rule in the
matter and made it returnable on 12.09.2000 and ad-interim relief
granted earlier was directed to be continued till then. However, as
per the record, thereafter, the relief has not been extended.
7. Ultimately, the matter has come up for hearing today and I have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2399/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
heard learned advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta for the petitioners,
learned AGP Mr. Rohan Shah for the respondent - State and
learned advocate Mr. Dhirenrdra Mehta for the respondent no. 2.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta for the petitioners
challenged the order mainly on the ground of violation of
principles of natural justice by pointing out the observation made
by the Special Secretary (Appeals) while noting the submissions of
the petitioners at the time when the petitioners preferred Revision
Application No. 1 of 1997. He drew attention of this Court to
internal page no. 2 of the order running page no. 22 of the petition
wherein while recording the submissions of the petitioners, the
learned Special Secretary has observed that the grievance of the
petitioners is that though the price of the land is determined vide
order dated 06.08.1978 and certificate under section 32 M is also
issued on 24.08.1978 after almost 20 years, despite the possession
the petitioners in respect of the land in question, the petitioners are
not made party in Tenancy Appeal No. 138 of 1996 by Deputy
Collector, Surat and without hearing the petitioners, the order in
favour of Gajaraben dated 06.01.1978 passed by the Mamlatdar
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2399/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
and ALT is quashed.
8.1. Learned advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta for the petitioners
pointed out that despite the aforesaid specific contention raised by
the petitioners, the same was neither verified by the Special
Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) nor the same has been
dealt with in the appeal and straightway the Special Secretary
(Appeals) has proceeded on the merits of the matter. He states that
by not joining the petitioners as party in the original proceedings
before the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Appeal No. 138 of 1996,
the petitioners' right of ordinance has been taken away and the
impugned order passed against the petitioner is passed in violation
of principles of natural justice and therefore, both the impugned
orders dated 31.01.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector, Surat as
well as order dated 29.10.1999 passed the Secretary, (Appeal)
Revenue Department are required to be quashed and set aside on
this ground alone. He states that the petitioners shall make
submissions on merits of the matter only in case if this contention
is opposed by the other side and something contrary is shown to
this Court that the petitioners were heard before the Deputy
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2399/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
Collector or were joined as party before the Deputy Collector.
9. Though learned AGP Mr. Rohan Shah appearing for the
respondent - State and learned advocate Mr. Dhirendra Mehta
appearing for the respondent no. 2.1 were heard, both the learned
advocates appearing for the State and private respondents could
not dispute the aforesaid submissions made by learned advocate
Mr. Dakshesh Mehta and therefore, this Court has no hesitation in
coming to the conclusion that the impugned order dated
31.01.1997 in Tenancy Appeal No. 138 of 1996 was passed in
violation of principles of natural justice as the present petitioners
were not heard.
10.However, learned AGP Mr. Rohan Shah and learned advocate Mr.
Dhirendra Mehta both request that in case if this Court is quashing
both the impugned orders and the matter is remanded back to
Deputy Collector, Surat for afresh consideration, in that case, the
Deputy Collector, Surat may be directed to hear and decide the
remand case at the earliest, considering the fact that the original
proceedings relates back to the year 1996 i.e. almost before 28
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2399/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
years.
11.Considering the aforesaid submissions as none of the learned
advocates appearing for the parties could point out that while
passing the impugned orders dated 31.01.1997 in Tenancy Appeal
No. 138 of 1996, the Deputy Collector, Surat had heard the
petitioners or the petitioners were party before the Deputy
Collector, Surat as the petitioners could successfully establish the
violation of principles of natural justice as he was not heard in
Tenancy Appeal No. 138 of 1996, the order passed against the
petitioners in Tenancy Appeal No. 138 of 1996 dated 31.01.1997
is required to be quashed and set aside and the same is quashed
and set aside.
12.Resultantly, the order confirming the aforesaid order in Revision
Application No. 1 of 1997 dated 29.10.1999 is also required to be
quashed and set aside the same is also quashed and set aside.
13.The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Collector, Surat for
fresh consideration of Tenancy Appeal No. 138 of 1996 with a
direction to hear and decide the aforesaid Tenancy Appeal within a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2399/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
period of three months from today but in any case not later than
30.04.2024 by passing a reasoned order after noting the
submissions of both the sides.
14.With the above direction, the present petition is allowed. Rule is
made absolute. No order as to costs.
15.It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the
matter.
Direct service is permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
VARSHA DESAI
