Gujarat High Court
Lovebhai Girdharbhai vs Special Secretary, Revenue Department ... on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3906/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3906 of 2024
==========================================================
LOVEBHAI GIRDHARBHAI & ANR.
Versus
SPECIAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (SSRD) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR RUDRAM T TRIVEDI(12973) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS. RITIKA(14645) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR SHAILESH DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR RUTURAJ NANAVATI(5624) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
MR. ZALAK B PIPALIA(6161) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant
Government Pleader Mr. Shailesh Desai, learned advocate
Mr. Zalak B. Pipalia waive service of notice of rule on behalf
of their respective respondent Nos. 1 to 4 respectively.
Though served none appears for other respondents. With
the consent of parties, matter is taken up for hearing.
2. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India seeking following relief :-
"(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing and setting aside the order impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3906/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
dated 22.12.2023 passed under exhibit 50 by the Ld. Principal Sr. Civil
Judge Junagadh in Regular Civil Suit No. 82 of 2019 (Annexure-A);
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present
Special Civil Application, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the
operation, implementation and execution of the order dated
22.12.2023 in Regular Civil Suit No. 82 of 2019 (Annexure-A);
(C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant ex-parte ad-interim
relief in terms of para 7(B) above;
(D) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass such other and
further order(s) that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. The parties will be referred as far as possible as per
their original position in the suit.
Facts of the case.
4. The petitioners herein are the original plaintiffs,
whereas, the respondents are original defendants of Regular
Civil Suit No. 82 of 2019 pending before the Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Junagadh. The suit is filed seeking declaration
and injunction whereby the defendants sought a declaration
that orders which are referred in the prayer clause passed by
the respective Revenue Authorities, who are joined in the
suit be declared null and void, illegal and passed without
jurisdiction. Further prayer sought that defendants No. 1 & 2
have no jurisdiction to decide title of suit land which is
agricultural in nature. The injunction is also prayed against
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3906/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
the defendants.
4.1 It appears that as per pleading of plaintiffs, orders
which are passed by the Revenue Authorities beyond the
period of limitation and further mentioned that the land in
question allotted by the Collector, Junagadh vide its order
dated 24.01.1997 whereby it was given in favour of District
Panchayat, Junagadh. It is further stated that Mamlatdar,
Mendarada vide its order dated 13.01.1993 subsequently
allotted land in question in favour of 16 persons.
4.2 The suit appears to have been contested by the
defendants. The trial Court vide its order dated 13th
September, 2023 passed below Exh. 48 framed eight issues,
which is to be tried.
4.3 After framing of the issues by the trial Court, an
impugned application came to be filed by the original
plaintiffs below Exh. 50 under Order 14 rule 4 & 5 of CPC, to
add and amend the issues as prayed in Para-4 (i) of the
impugned application.
4.4 The plaintiffs have requested the trial Court to frame
additional issue to the effect that "whether the plaintiffs
prove that the orders passed by the defendants No. 1 & 2 on
04.02.2014 and 24.07.2017 respectively is time barred" and so
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3906/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
also requested the trial Court to amend/modify the issue
no.1, thereby to add word "Collector Shree, Junagadh before
the word Mamlatdar Shree Mendarada." The copy of the
impugned application appears to have been served upon the
defendants and as such made an endorsement that No
Objection.
4.5 After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide its order
dated 22.12.2023 rejected the impugned application, which
is challenged by the original plaintiffs by preferring the
present writ application.
Submission of the petitioners
5.0 Learned senior advocate Mr. Percy Kavina with learned
advocate Mr. Nikunt Raval for the petitioners would submit
that the impugned order is non speaking order as no reasons
are assigned by the trial Court while rejecting the impugned
application and as the impugned order is bad in law, requires
to be interfered by this Court.
5.1 Learned senior advocate Mr. Kavina would further
submit that by framing an additional issue and amending
issue no.1, no prejudice would cause to the defendants,
inasmuch as burden to prove such issues would always
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3906/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
remain on the shoulder of the plaintiffs. He would further
submit that the issues which is to be added and so also to be
amended is a part of pleading of plaintiffs, which can be
confirmed by reading Para-2 & 10 of the plaint.
5.2 Making the above submissions, learned senior advocate
Mr. Kavina would request this Court to allow the present writ
application.
Submission of the respondents-State
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Shailesh
Desai would submit that plaintiffs can not be allowed to add
additional issue, once the trial Court has already framed all
necessary issues germane from the pleadings of the parties
and as such there is no error committed by the trial Court
while rejecting the impugned application. He would further
submit that the plaintiffs could not have questioned the
order passed by the Revenue Authorities while exercising
their power under respective revenue laws and in absence of
any provisions of Limitation Act so prescribed under any Act,
such issue of limitation can not be framed.
6.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Desai would
further submit that considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case and the impugned application filed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3906/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
by the plaintiffs is not only misconceived but also requires to
be rejected.
6.2 Making the above submission, learned Assistant
Government Pleader Mr. Desai would request this Court to
dismiss the present writ application.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Zalak Pipalia for respondents No.
3 & 4 would submit that as such the essential dispute is
between the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 & 2 and this
Court would think deem it appropriate then allow the
impugned application.
8. No other and further submissions have made by the
learned advocates for the respective parties.
Point for determination
9. The short question falls for consideration as to whether
the order impugned in the present writ application suffers
from any illegality, irregularity and is it non-speaking order
or not?
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3906/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
ANALYSIS
10. The facts which are mentioned hereinabove are not in
dispute. Once having realized that the trial Court has left out
one crucial issue as regards the limitation and there is
something left out to be incorporated in issue No.1, the
impugned application came to be filed by the plaintiffs.
11. The trial Court has rejected the impugned application,
al-beit, without assigning any reasons for its rejection. I say
so after going through the impugned order, at least, I could
not find any reasons/ grounds on which the trial Court has
thought it fit to reject the impugned application.
12. At this stage, I remind myself that passing any order
that too by judicial person without assigning reasons are
antithesis to justice delivery system. It is apposite to refer
and reply upon decision of the Honourable Apex Court of
India in a case of UPSRTC vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta
reported in 2009 (12) SCC 609, wherein observed as under :-
"[8] Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration
of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons,
howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all
the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge.
The absence of reasons has rendered the High Courts judgment not
sustainable.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3906/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
[9] Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 (1) All E.R. 1148
observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good
administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974
LCR 120 it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial
of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision
taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion
arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The
emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the
"inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually
impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or
exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the
decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial
system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to
the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can
know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary
requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order
made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a
sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial
performance.
[10] This Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar has while
reiterating the view expressed in the earlier cases for the past two
decades emphasised the necessity, duty and obligation of the High
Court to record reasons in disposing of such cases. The hallmark of a
judgment/order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to
disclose the reasons for its decision and giving of reasons has been
always insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound
administration justice delivery system, to make known that there had
been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court
and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. Any
judicial power has to be judiciously exercised and the mere fact that
discretion is vested with the court/forum to exercise the same either
way does not constitute any license to exercise it at whims or fancies
and arbitrarily as used to be conveyed by the well-known saying:
"varying according to the Chancellors foot". Arbitrariness has been
always held to be the anathema of judicial exercise of any power, all
the more so when such orders are amenable to challenge further
before higher forums. Such ritualistic observations and summary
disposal which has the effect of, at times, cannot be said to be a
proper and judicial manner of disposing of judiciously the claim before
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3906/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
the courts. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute
of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which
is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise
undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really
applied its mind."
(emphasis supplied)
13. It is by now well settled that reasons are heart of any
judicial order through which Court would convey its decision
to the party. Every court supposed to bear in mind that
justice should not only be done but seems to be done. The
litigant must know why for what reasons, he/she win or lose
the case. Such indispensable right of litigant at least can not
be taken away by first court of trial by not assigning any
reasons. Thus, I would like to observe that trial Court must
assign reasons how so may be brief while answering issues to
follow rule of procedure whereby to observe principles of
natural justice.
14. This Court could have quashed the impugned order and
matter could have been remanded back to the trial Court to
decide the impugned application on its merit afresh.
Nonetheless, considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the
impugned application and so also the fact that the suit is of
the year 2019 pending at the stage of recording evidence of
the parties, this Court has decided to adjudicate the
impugned application itself, thereby, allowed the respective
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3906/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
learned advocates for the parties to raise submissions in
support of their claim.
15. After appreciating submissions so canvassed by the
learned advocates for the receptive parties and after having
gone through the plaint, it appears that the respective
orders passed by the defendants No.1 & 2 respectively are
questioned by the plaintiffs on the ground of delay/
limitation. The defendants No. 1 & 2 appear to have been
questioned such fact by disputing such allegation of plaintiff
in their written statement.
16. Once, such dispute cropped up before the trial Court
which is germane from the pleadings, it was incumbent upon
the trial Court to frame such issue, on which the parties to
the suit will be allowed to lead their respective evidence and
having not so framed it, requires this Court to interfere with
such order passed by the trial Court.
17. Furthermore, in issue no.1, it appears that inadvertent
error on the part of the trial Court not incorporating the
word "Collector Shree, Junagadh prior the word "Mamlatdar,
Mendarada" is apparent in asmuch as plaintiffs have
categorically given the fact about from whom the transfer of
land in question came through (see Para-2 of the plaint).
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3906/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
18. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, there is substance in the argument made by the
learned senior advocate Mr. Kavina for the petitioners and so
also after going through the pleadings and the impugned
application, I am of the view that the trial Court has
committed a gross and serious error of law by rejecting the
impugned application apart from not assigning any reasons
for its rejection as impugned order is held to be non-
speaking order.
Conclusion
19. The upshot of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, I
am of the view that the order impugned in the present writ
application suffers from illegality, irregularity on the part of
the trial Court and, it is passed without assigning any reasons
which is contrary to the settled principle of law as discussed
hereinabove requires to be quashed and set aside which is
hereby set aside.
20. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned application filed
below Ex. 50 in the suit requires to be allowed, which is
hereby allowed in terms of Para-4 (i) made in the impugned
application. Consequently, the trial Court is hereby directed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3906/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
to incorporate issue No.3 (A) as suggested in the impugned
application and also modify issue No.1 as prayed for by the
plaintiffs in the impugned application.
21. Once such addition and amendment in the issues
will be undertaken by the trial Court, it may proceed further
with the suit in accordance with law.
22. The present writ application is hereby allowed. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
SALIM/
