Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vanitaben Vijaykumar Savak on 20 January, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1768/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1768 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15858 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1768 of 2024
==================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
VANITABEN VIJAYKUMAR SAVAK & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MS. HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR SATISH A PANDYA(556) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 20/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
[1] Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and
perused the record.
[2] The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the
judgment and order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge. The delay in filing the instant appeal has been condoned
keeping in mind that the matter may be proceeded on merits.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1768/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
[3] The issue raised in the present appeal is about the transfer of a
tribal land to a non-tribal vide sale deed dated 25.07.1995 and
further transfer by non-tribal to a tribal vide sale deed dated
07.09.1995. There is no dispute about the fact that the tribal land
which was transferred to a non-tribal by the first sale deed had been
returned back to a tribal with the second sale deed executed on
07.09.1995. It seems that the proceedings for the breach of the
provisions of Section 73 (AA) with respect of the Gujarat Land
Revenue Code, 1879 with respect to the first transfer dated
25.07.1995 to a non-tribal, had been initiated on 26.06.2002 by the
Deputy Collector. However, the fact remains that on the date of the
initiation of the proceedings for the breach of condition under
Section 73 (AA), the tribal land had been returned to a tribal.
[4] It seems that for this reason, the learned Single has refused to
interfere by recording that before the powers are exercised, third
party rights have been created and equities have been changed. In
so far as the writ petitioners are concerned, admittedly are tribal and
during the intervening period, even if the land in question had been
transferred to a non-tribal by a transaction to which the petitioners
were not parties, it would not affect the sale transactions entered in
favour of the appellants.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1768/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
[5] Taking note of these facts, reflected from the reasoning given
by the learned Single Judge, and in view of undisputed facts that
within two months of the first transfer, i.e., 25.07.1995, the land in
question was restored to a tribal by the second transaction dated
07.09.1995, we find that the plea of violation of Section 73 (AA),
which may be reason for initiation of the proceedings by the Deputy
Collector, would not survive. With the second transfer, the
irregularity in the previous transaction will stand removed.
[6] We may further note with the aid of the decision of the High
Court of Bombay in the case of Atul Projects India Ltd. versus
Babu Dewoo Farle and others reported in 2011 SCC OnLine
Bombay 431 relied by the Ms. Hetal Patel, learned Assistant
Government Pleader which pertains to the provisions in Section 36
(A) of the Bombay Revenue Code, which is pari materia to Section 73
(AA) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. It is observed therein
relying on the division bench judgment of the Bombay High Court
that the aforesaid provision has been enacted with a view to
protecting tribals against invidious discrimination and the aim and
object of the legislature was to reach out to all modes by which the
occupancy of a tribal may be conveyed to a non-tribal. Whatever may
be the mode of transfer, if the consequence is to effect a transfer of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1768/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
the occupancy of a tribal to a non-tribal, the requirement of prior
permission would be attracted and a transfer in violation of the
aforesaid provision would be invalid and of no legal consequence.
[7] Looking to the object and purpose of enactment of Section 73
(AA) of the Gujarat Revenue Coed brought into force with effect from
01.02.1981, we are of the considered view that the provisions of
Section 73 (AA) (4), which enables the Revenue Authority to initiate
proceedings suo motu in case of a transfer of a tribal land to a non-
tribunal would not be attracted in the present case, inasmuch as, the
said provision cannot run against the original writ petitioners who
are the current transferrees and are in possession in the land in
question and admittedly are persons belonging to tribal community.
[8] In view of the above, we do not find any error in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal stands dismissed,
accordingly.
[9] Connected Civil Application stands disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
