Gujarat High Court
Decd. Udaji Koyaji Thakor vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 16 January, 2024
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/6/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 6 of 2024
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15231 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 6 of 2024
=================================================
DECD. UDAJI KOYAJI THAKOR
Versus
GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL
=================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6
SHRENIK R JASANI(9486) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,5,5.1,5.2,5.3,5.4,5.5,5.6
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP
for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MS HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 4
=================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P.
MAYEE
Date : 16/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/6/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
1. The instant appeal has arisen out of a judgment and order
dated 19.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing
the writ petition challenging order dated 12.12.2022 passed by the
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. REVISION/
GDHAN/232/2022. The revision filed in the year 2022 at the
instance of the appellants herein, was against an order dated
27.05.1986 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) in
Tenancy Appeal No. 193 of 1984 as also the order dated 21.05.1985
passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar in Tenancy Case
No. 3790 of 1983.
2. We may note that by means of the aforesaid orders, the
Mutation Entry No. 1471 dated 01.08.1972 was cancelled on the
ground that the original tenant of the said plot had violated the
provisions of Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural
Land Act, 1948 (for short, "the Tenancy Act, 1948"). Challenging
the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and the Mamlatdar in the
year 1986 and 1984; respectively, it was contended by the
petitioner / revisionist before the Tribunal that the father of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/6/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
present petitioners had expired on 10.05.2021 and thereafter only, it
came to the knowledge of the petitioners that the land in question
belonging to their ancestors, had been vested with the State
Government. No plausible explanation could be offered as to why
the father of the petitioner, who was alive till the year 2021 did not
challenge the order of deletion of mutation entry and vesting of land
in question in the State Government in breach of Section 43 of the
Tenancy Act, 1948, during his lifetime. The fact remains that the
order of vesting of land in question in the State Government in
breach of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act, 1948 had been passed by
the Mamlatdar on 21.05.1984 in view of the transfer made by the
father of the petitioners in favour of his brother, without obtaining
prior permission of the Collector.
3. Noticing the above facts, we do not find any good ground to
interfere in the findings returned by the learned Single Judge in
dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay. The contention
of the learned advocate for the appellants that the mutation entry,
which was found to be based on the transfer in violation of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/6/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2024
undefined
provisions of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act, 1948, did not contain
the plot number, which is subject matter of dispute, is not
substantiated from any material on record. We cannot reopen the
controversy which has been settled about 34 years back, that too, at
the instance of the petitioners, who are heirs of the original tenant,
who did not challenge the offending orders during his lifetime.
4. For the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the appeal, the
same is accordingly, dismissed. Connected application stands
disposed of, accordingly.
[ Sunita Agarwal, CJ. ]
[ Aniruddha P. Mayee, J. ]
hiren
/1
