Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Patel Associates on 4 November, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1863/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 1863 of 2021
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1203 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5378 of 2025
(F/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 24797 of 2021)
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1203 of 2025
(F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 24795 of 2021)
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1203 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14448 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021 In R/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 1203 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14448 of 2017
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
PATEL ASSOCIATES & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SANJAY UDHWANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MOHINI H DAVE(7849) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 04/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (CONDONATION OF
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1863/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
DELAY):-
The delay in filing the application seeking leave to
appeal is explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay
condonation application is hereby allowed. The delay in filing
the application is hereby condoned.
The Registry is directed to allot the regular number to
the Letters Patent Appeal, forthwith.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL):-
1. This is a wholly misconceived application seeking leave
to appeal filed on behalf of the State of Gujarat that too
through the Commissioner of Commercial Tax. At the outset,
we may note that the State Gujarat cannot be represented
through the Commissioner of Commercial Tax. The applicant
no.1, therefore, being not properly represented, cannot
maintain the leave application.
2. In so far as the applicant no.2 namely the Commercial
Tax Officer is concerned, the said applicant is neither
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1863/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
necessary nor proper party to the proceedings of the writ
Court which has resulted in passing the judgment and order
dated 19.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, which
is sought to be challenged by seeking leave to file appeal by
means of the present application.
3. Pertinent is to note that the writ petition invoking
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India has been filled challenging the action on the part of
the revenue authorities in refusing to mutate the name of the
petitioner in the revenue records and the order passed by the
Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) dated 24.04.2017
passed in Revision Application No.116 of 2013. There was also
a challenge to the order dated 27.04.2011 passed by the
respondent no.5 before the writ court namely the Secretary
Revenue Department (Disputes).
4. The learned Single Judge while noticing the fact that the
revenue authorities had declined to mutate the name of
petitioner in the records of right on the ground that there are
outstanding dues of the Sales Tax Department against the
original owner of the property in question namely the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1863/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
borrower, has further noted that the petitioner was an auction
purchaser and a sale-deed dated 29.07.2010 came to be
executed in favour of the petitioner by the Recovery Officer,
Debt Recovery Tribunal. The public auction was conducted by
the Debt Recovery Tribunal pursuant to recovery issued by it.
5. In so far as the stand of the revenue authorities about
the charge created by the Commercial Tax Department over
the property in question, it was noted by the learned Single
Judge that the applicant no.2 herein namely, Commercial Tax
Officer, Dahod wrote a letter dated 13.01.2010 to the
Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal making a request
that unless and until the government dues were paid, the
attachment shall remain continued and title be not cleared by
the Office of the Commercial Tax Department. The said
objections raised by the Commercial Tax Officer, Dahod were
looked into by the Debt Revenue Tribunal and vide order
dated 26.07.2010 and the Tribunal had overruled the same.
6. Having noted the same, the learned Single Judge has
recorded that the Sales Tax Department [Commercial Tax
Department], if was aggrieved in any manner ought to have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1863/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
challenged the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal
dated 26.07.2010 before the Appellate Tribunal or any other
appropriate authority.
7. Taking note of the above, the learned Single Judge has
issued the following directions:-
"6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and having considered the materials on record, I
am of the view that the name of the petitioner should be
mutated in the record of the rights at the earliest. I am of
the view that once the Debt Recovery Tribunal has passed
an order rejecting the claim filed by the Commercial Tax
Officer, Dahod and finalized the sale in favour of the
petitioner, then the revenue authority is obliged to mutate
the name of the petitioner. Whatever may be the dispute
with the Sales Tax Department, the same will have to be
thrashed out in accordance with law. In fact, if the Sales
Tax Department was aggrieved in any manner by the
order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal rejecting their claim,
then the order ought to have challenged before the
Appellate Tribunal or any other appropriate authority.
Without expressing any further opinion on the issue
with regard to the dues of the Sales Tax Department, this
petition is disposed of with a direction to the revenue
authority to mutate the name of the petitioner in the
revenue record."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1863/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
8. Considering the observations made by the learned Single
Judge in the judgment sought to be challenged before us,
pertinent is to note that the only direction has been given by
the learned Single Judge is to the revenue authority to mutate
the name of the petitioner. In so far as the dispute with the
Sales Tax Department is concerned, liberty has been granted
to the concerned department to take recourse to the remedy
available in law.
9. In view of the above, the application filed on behalf of
the Commercial Tax Officer, Dahod seeking leave to appeal to
challenge the judgment and order dated 19.09.2017 on the
premise that the Commercial Tax Officer, Dahod was not
impleaded being necessary and proper party in the writ
proceedings, is found to be misconceived. The application
seeking leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and
order dated 19.09.2017 is hereby dismissed being devoid of
merits. No order as to costs.
ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL:-
As the application seeking leave to file appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1863/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
challenging the judgment and order dated 19.09.2017 is
dismissed, the present appeal stands dismissed, accordingly.
Consequently, the connected Civil Application for stay
would not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
A. B. VAGHELA
