Gujarat High Court
Mayursinh Bhupatsinh Vaghela vs Poonamsinh Babaji Solanki on 21 April, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/588/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 588 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11870 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 588 of 2025
==========================================================
MAYURSINH BHUPATSINH VAGHELA
Versus
POONAMSINH BABAJI SOLANKI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ARCHANABEN B GOSWAMI(8154) for the Respondent(s) No.
2,3,4,4.1,4.2,4.3
MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 5,6,7,8
MR BHADRESH C PATEL(598) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HK THAKOR(6182) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 21/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the
record.
2. The present appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment
and order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the learned single Judge in
Special Civil Application No. 11870 of 2019 after grant of leave to
Appeal vide order dated 10.02.2025, wherein it is recorded that the
appellant was stranger to the proceedings culminated before the
writ court. The judgment and order dated 24.11.2022 passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/588/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
the learned single Judge was based upon the compromise allegedly
arrived at between the parties to the said writ petition. We may
record that the original writ petition was filed by one Poonamsinh
Babaji Solanki challenging the order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the
Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision
Petition No. 7 of 2019, as also the order passed by the Collector
dated 31.01.2019, which in turn had affirmed the order passed by
the Prant Officer dated 10.10.2016.
3. The dispute essentially arose out of the mutation entries with
respect to the land bearing Block/Survey No. 253/1 admeasuring H.
0-71-83, Block/Survey No. 253/2 admeasuring H. 0-70-81 and
Block/Survey No. 254 admeasuring H. 1-66-93 situated at village
Dabhoda of Taluka/District Gandhinagar. It is pertinent to record
that the lands-in-question were originally owned by Varvaji Devaji
Solanki, who was succeeded by his wife Chandaben Varvaji Solanki.
Three daughters were born out of the wedlock namely (i) Baluben,
(ii) Madhiben and (iii) Buniben, who after death of their mother
Chandaben, laid their claims on the lands-in-question. The original
petitioner namely Poonamsinh Babaji Solanki, on the other hand,
claimed rights in the lands-in-question on the basis of the adoption
deed dated 15.10.1999 allegedly executed by Chandaben, the widow
of Varaji Devaji Solanki.
4. The proceedings for mutation of the names of the rival
claimants were, thus, initiated. In so far as the proceedings for
mutation filed by the original petitioner based on the adoption deed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/588/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
dated 15.10.1999 is concerned, the petitioner had lost before three
revenue authorities namely the Prant Officer, the Collector and the
SSRD, which has led to filling of the writ petition, out of which the
present appeal has arisen.
5. We may further note that insofar as the claim of three
daughters of Chandaben, wife of the original owner deceased
Varvaji Devaji Solanki was concerned, their names were mutated in
the revenue records in the proceedings initiated by them by virtue
of the order dated 14.12.2018. After mutation, a registered sale
deed dated 17.12.2018 was executed in favour of the appellant
herein by three daughters of Chandaben. It is also pertinent to
note that that the factum of execution of the sale deed dated
17.12.2018 was well within the knowledge of the original petitioner
namely Poonamsinh Babaji Solanki, who had filed Special Civil Suit
No. 42 of 2019 challenging the validity of the sale deed in favour
of the the appellant, who was impleaded as defendant No.4 therein.
6. It is further pertinent to note that on the date of presentation
of the writ petition before this Court namely Special Civil
Application No. 11870 of 2019 in the month of July 2019, the
Special Civil Suit No.42 of 2019 was pending before the competent
Civil Court. It is also relevant to record that the writ petition
challenging the orders passed by the mutation authorities was filed
impleading three daughters of the original owner whose names were
recorded in the revenue records on 14.12.2018 on the basis of
succession. However, there is no whisper in the entire writ petition
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/588/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
about the transfer having been made in the name of the appellant
by virtue of the sale deed dated 17.12.2018.
7. The matter did not rest there. The original petitioner and the
respondents who were transferor of the sale deed dated 17.12.2018,
had allegedly entered into a compromise which was filed before this
Court in the Special Civil Application No. 11870 of 2019 by way of
an affidavit. This Court vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2022
being in ignorance of the transfer of right in the lands-in-question
to the third party, had believed the version of the contesting parties
that they have settled the matter amicably out of the Court and the
writ petition was disposed of in terms of the settlement resulting
into setting aside of the orders passed by the revisional authorities
of rejection of the application for mutation filed by the original
petitioner based on the adoption deed.
8. The result is that the original petitioner has succeeded in
getting an order in his favour for making of the mutation entries on
the basis of the adoption deed in collusion with three transferors
who had already parted away with their rights in the property by
virtue of the sale deed dated 17.12.2018. It is pertinent to note
that at no stage of the proceedings prior to filing of the
compromise seeking for mutation of the name of the original
petitioner based on the adoption deed, this Court was intimated
about the transfer of rights in the property or creation of a third
party right by the persons whose names were mutated in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/588/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
revenue records in a parallel proceedings vide order dated
14.12.2018.
9. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the writ
petition namely Special Civil Application No. 11870 of 2019, an
application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was filed by the appellant
herein seeking for dismissal of the suit outrightly filed by the
original petition namely Special Civil Suit No. 42 of 2019. The said
application was contested by the original petitioner and the order of
dismissal of the said application was challenged in a Civil Revision
Application No. 74 of 2021 wherein further proceedings of Special
Civil Suit No. 42 of 2019 was stayed.
10. Further, after the judgment and order dated 24.11.2022 was
passed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the
parties to the writ petition, much after creation of third party
rights, an application was filed in the Special Civil Suit No. 42 of
2019 by the original petitiner namely Poonamsinh Babaji Solanki to
withdraw the suit unconditionally and, thus, rendering the Revision
Application No. 74 of 2021 infructuous.
11. It is brought before us by the appellant that at the stage of
withdrawal of the Special Civil Suit No. 42 of 2019, i.e. when the
original petitioner filed application for withdrawal, he came to
know about the proceedings of the Special Civil Application No.
11870 of 2019, which has been brought to an end vide judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/588/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
and order dated 24.11.2022 based on the amicable settlement
arrived at between the parties to the writ petition.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted
hereinabove, it is evident that the original petitioner namely
Poonamsinh Babaji Solanki had succeeded in misusing the process
of this Court by concealment of the material fact of third party
interest over the lands-in-question, causing prejudice to the
appellant.
13. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent
herein namely the original petitioner is that the purchaser namely
the appellant herein, was neither a necessary party nor proper party
in the proceedings of Special Civil Application No. 11870 of 2019,
as it had arisen out of the revenue proceedings pertaining to the
mutation of the names of the rival claimants. This stand cannot be
appreciated for the simple reason that two rival claimants, who
were contesting for the lands-in-question could not have entered
into any compromise or amicable settlement, after when third party
rights were created by way of the registered sale deed dated
17.12.2018, to frustrate the interest of the transferee.
14. The present is a case where the original petitioner namely
Poonamsinh Babaji Solanki had filed a suit challenging the sale
deed of transfer of right in the property wherein no interim
injunction had been granted and, moreover, the proceedings of the
Civil Suit had been stayed in the Civil Revision Application filed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/588/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
the contesting defendant namely the appellant herein. By no
stretch of imagination, the parties to the writ petition could have
entered into any amicable settlement for recording the name of the
original petitioner as a successor of Chandaben with respect to the
lands-in-question, without impleading the third party, whose
interest were already created by virtue of registered sale deed dated
17.12.2018.
15. We, therefore, reach at an irresistible conclusion that the
order dated 24.11.2022 was obtained by the original petitioner
namely Poonamsinh Babaji Solanki by playing a fraud upon this
Court. The original petitioner namely the respondent herein being
guilty of fraud committed in the Court proceedings is liable to be
prosecuted for perjury. The proceedings pertaining to commission
of the offence of perjury for misleading the Court by making mis-
statement and concealment of material fact shall be initiated before
the competent court of jurisdiction with the intimation to be given
by the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat.
16. For the misuse of the process of this Court and wasting
precious judicial time of this Court, the original petitioner namely
Poonamsinh Babaji Solanki, who has filed false affidavit before this
Court and succeeded in getting the order dated 24.11.2022 based on
concealment of material fact, is liable to pay an exemplary cost of
Rs. 10,00,000/-, which shall be deposited before the Registrar
General, High Court within a period of two months from today,
failing which recovery proceedings shall be initiated against him.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/588/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
17. Further, as the judgment and order dated 24.11.2022 has
been obtained by the original petitioner namely Poonamsinh Babaji
Solanki by playing fraud upon this Court, the same is hereby set
aside. The appeal stands allowed. The writ petition namely
Special Civil Application No. 11870 of 2019 is restored to its
original number and shall be placed before the learned single
Judge for adjudication afresh, wherein the appellant herein may
seek impleadment.
18. It is clarified that the learned single Judge shall deal with the
writ petition independently without being influenced by any of the
observations made hereinabove. All arguments pertaining to the
orders passed by the competent revenue authorities which are
subject matter of challenge in the writ petition can very well be
taken before the Court by the parties concerned.
With the disposal of the Appeal, pending Civil Application
stands disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
C.M. JOSHI
