Gujarat High Court

Pravinkumar Vrajlal Sedani vs State Of Gujarat on 2 May, 2025

Author: Nikhil S. Kariel

Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/SCA/11790/2009                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

                                                                                                                 undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11790 of 2009


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                       ========================================================

                                       Approved for Reporting                  Yes           No

                       ========================================================
                                                    PRAVINKUMAR VRAJLAL SEDANI
                                                               Versus
                                                      STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                       ========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR CHITRAJEET UPADHYAY WITH MR. KIRTAN H MISTRY(10012) for the
                       Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MR NIKUNJ KANARA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
                       Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
                       MR. NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
                       ========================================================

                            CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                                                          Date : 02/05/2025

                                                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Chitrajeet Upadhyay with learned

Advocate Mr. Kirtan Mistry on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant

Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara on behalf of respondent- State

and learned Advocate Mr. Nishit Gandhi on behalf of respondent no.6.

2. By way of this petition the petitioner challenges order dated

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

30.05.2009 passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department in Revision

Application No. MVV/Gharkhed/RJT/1/07 more particularly whereby the

order passed by the Collector, Rajkot dated 17.04.2007 has been confirmed.

3. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate

Mr.Upadhyay it would appear to this Court that the petition has a slightly

checkered history.

3.1 It would appear that the petitioner had purchased the property in

question i.e. land bearing survey no. 178 and 169 situated at Village: Nyara

Taluka: Paddhari, District Rajkot vide sale-deed dated 16.06.1986 and

whereas entry no. 686 qua the above sale had been mutated in the revenue

record on 06.09.1986. It would appear that said entry had been taken up in

suo motu proceedings by the Assistant Collector, Morbi more particularly

alleging breach of Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance, 1949

and whereas vide an order dated 20.07.1991, the Assistant Collector had

cancelled entry no. 686 and had directed the petitioner to be evicted from

the land in question. It would appear that the said order had been

challenged by the petitioner before the Collector, Rajkot by preferring Land

Appeal No. 59 of 1994 and whereas the Collector, Rajkot vide order dated

04.03.1995, had confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector. It

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

would appear that the petitioner had challenged the same before the GRT

by preferring Revision Application No. TEN/BR/9/1995 and whereas vide

order dated 07.01.1997, the revision application preferred by the petitioner

had been allowed and the order passed by the Assistant Collector, dated

20.07.1991 and order passed by the Collector, Rajkot dated 04.03.1995 were

set aside and the matter had been remanded back to the Deputy Collector

for appropriate decision as per the observations in the order in question. It

would appear that again, vide an order dated 06.12.1997, the Deputy

Collector had reiterated the earlier i.e quashing of entry no. 686 and

whereas the petitioner was directed to be removed from the land as per the

Section 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance, 1949. The petitioner had

thereupon challenged the said order before the Collector, Rajkot and

whereas vide an order dated 31.05.2003 in Land Appeal No. 20 of 1998, the

Collector, Rajkot, had rejected the appeal preferred by the present petitioner

and whereas the Deputy Collector, Morbi had been directed to ensure that

the petitioner is removed from the land in question after taking appropriate

steps under Section 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance, 1949. The

petitioner had again challenged the same before the Special Secretary

Revenue Department (SSRD) by preferring Revision Application No.

MVV/JMN/RJT/14/2005 and whereas, the SSRD vide order dated

17.04.2006, had set aside the order passed by the Collector, Rajkot dated

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

31.05.2003 more particularly directing the Collector to conduct the

proceedings afresh. It would appear that the Collector, Rajkot had

thereupon conducted Land Appeal No. 20 of 2009 - Remand Case No. 4 /

05-06 and again vide an order dated 17.04.2007, the Collector, Rajkot had

reiterated the findings of the Collector, Rajkot in the earlier round of

proceedings i.e vide order dated 31.05.2003. The petitioner being aggrieved

by the said order had approached the SSRD by preferring Revision

Application No. MVV/Gharkhed/RTJ/2 of 2007 and whereas vide order

impugned before this Court dated 30.05.2009, the SSRD having confirmed

the order passed by the Collector dated 17.04.2007, the petitioner has

approached this Court.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Upadhyay on behalf of the petitioner would

draw the attention of this Court to an order passed by a learned Co-ordinate

Bench ( Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker- as his Lordships then was) in Special

Civil Application No. 8419 of 1998. Learned Advocate would submit that

the order in question was passed in case of a land which had been purchased

by the petitioner and his brothers situated at Survey No. 147 Village Koyli,

Taluka: Jodiya District: Jamnagar vide registered sale-deed dated 03.09.1985

for which a revenue entry no. 2099 had been mutated in the revenue record

on 04.10.1985. Learned Advocate would submit that entry had been taken

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

up in suo motu revision by the Assistant Collector and whereas vide an order

dated 22.05.1992, the said entry had been cancelled. Learned Advocate

would submit that the proceedings had thereafter been challenged before

the Collector and whereas the Collector had dismissed the revision

application and whereas, in a revision before the GRT, the orders of the

Assistant Collector and the Collector had been set aside.

4.1 Learned Advocate would submit that the order passed by the GRT

setting aside the order of the Collector and the Deputy Collector had been

challenged by the State by preferring Special Civil Application No. 8419 of

1998 and whereas it is in that matter that the order which is relied upon by

the learned Advocate dated 26.03.1999 had been passed. Learned Advocate

would submit that the issue in both the petitions were common, i.e. with

regard to the status of the petitioner as an 'agriculturist'. Learned Advocate

would submit that the learned Co-ordinate Bench in the said proceedings,

had interfered with the decision of the State to take up entry in suo motu

proceedings on the ground that such suo motu proceedings powers could not

be exercised after an unreasonable period. Learned Advocate would draw

the attention of this Court to the observation of the order whereby learned

Co-ordinate has inter alia observed that any action which is required to be

taken under the law must be taken within a reasonable time period and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

whereas according to the learned Co-ordinate Bench, a delay of more that 5

years in issuing notice, and more than three years in approaching the High

Court would be an action which cannot be justified. Paragraph no. 10 and

11 of the observation of the learned Co-ordinate Bench are reproduced

hereinbelow for benefit:

"10. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, contended that if the provisions of law were not complied with, the transaction could be said to be void and on that ground also, this is a fit case in which the petition requires to be entertained as otherwise object of the Act would be frustrated. But it cannot be ignored that any action which is required to be taken under law, must be taken within a reasonable period. If there is delay of more than five years in issuing notice and then again more than three year in approaching this court, it cannot be said that such an action can be justified.

11. In any view of the matter, it cannot be said that by allowing the revision application, the Tribunal has committed any error of law which requires interference by this court. I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed."

4.2 Learned Advocate would submit that having regard to the above

findings, the learned Co-ordinate bench had refused to interfere with the

order passed by the GRT. It is submitted by learned Advocate that the

learned Co-ordinate Bench having taken a view that suo motu proceedings

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

could not be initiated after a substantially long period of time, in a similar

proceeding, which was near about the same timeline as the proceedings in

which this Court had passed order dated 26.03.1999, yet, the respondents

without appreciating the purport of the order of this Court, had set aside the

entry after an unreasonable delay of 5 years from the date of mutation and

whereas it is submitted that the observations of this Court, in the above

decision, would be binding on this Court more particularly since all other

considerations remained the same. Learned Advocate would specifically

submit that while the order had been passed in the year 1999, therefore,

before the penultimate round of proceeding, the order had been relied upon

by the petitioner before the Collector and later before the GRT, before the

SSRD and whereas none of the authorities have given due regard to the

observations of this Court. Having regard to such submissions learned

Advocate would request this Court to allow the writ petition on the same

considerations.

5. As against the same learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanana would

vehemently oppose the present writ petition by submitting that the learned

Co-ordinate Bench had rejected the writ petition only on the ground of

delay and whereas there is no substantive findings by the learned Co-

ordinate Bench as regards the status of the petitioner as an agriculturist.







                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/SCA/11790/2009                              JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

                                                                                                           undefined

Learned AGP would submit that in absence of such a specific finding by the

learned Co-ordinate Bench, the said order would not be binding of this

Court more particularly since there is no ratio laid down by the learned Co-

ordinate bench. Having submitted as such, learned AGP would request this

Court not to interfere.

6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and

having perused the documents on record more particularly the orders

referred to hereinabove, to this Court it wold appear that the submissions

made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner are required to be acceded

to. Such a conclusion being arrived by this Court on the ground that the

facts before the learned Co-ordinate Bench and the facts before this Court

are identical. It would appear that before the learned Co-ordinate Bench he

Court, a parcel of land had been purchased by the petitioner and his brother

in the year 1985 and whereas entry as regards the same had been mutated in

the year 1985 and suo motu proceedings had been initiated in the year 1992

and whereas in the instant case, the property had been purchased in the

month of September 1985 and entry thereof had been mutated in the month

of June 1986 and entry thereof had been mutated in the revenue record in

the month September 1986 whereas the notice for initiating suo motu

proceedings had been initiated in the year 1991.






                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/SCA/11790/2009                                JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

                                                                                                             undefined

7. As per the observations of the learned Co-ordinate Bench in the

decision referred to hereinabove, in case of the present petitioner himself, it

would appear that this Court had come to a conclusion that issuing a notice

for initiating suo motu proceeding after more than five years, could not be

countenanced more particularly the same could not be treated as notice

issued within reasonable time. To this Court it would appear that the said

observation would apply on all fours to the facts of this case. To this court it

would appear that when this Court in an identical situation in case of the

very petitioner had taken a view that suo motu proceeding could not be

initiated after a period of five years even if it were with regard to initiating

proceedings against an entry on the ground of the petitioner not having the

status of an agriculturist then the said observations of the learned Co-