Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 404 (GUJ)

VALLABHBHAI RAMBHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2014-03-20

A.G.URAIZEE, K.S.JHAVERI

body2014
ORAL JUDGMENT KS JHAVERI 1. Heard Mr. Nirupam Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. N.D. Buch for Nanavaty Advocates for the appellants and Mr. K.K. Pujara as well as Mr. Rohan Yagnik, learned AGPs appearing for respondents. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the final judgement and order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 13443 of 2009 and order dated 18.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications No. 13444 to 13446 of 2009, the appellants have preferred the present appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2.1 The appellants filed writ petitions before the learned Single Judge assailing the orders dated 02.12.2009 passed by respondent no. 1 – Secretary (Appeals) in Revision Applications and 27.10.2008 passed by respondent no. 2 – Collector in Suo Motu Revision proceedings. The learned Single Judge confirming the orders passed by respondents no. 1 & 2 dismissed the writ petitions. 2.2 The appellants herein had purchased land bearing Survey No. 231 from respondent no. 3 by registered sale deed for Rs. 12000/- on the basis of which, name of the appellants came to be entered in the revenue record. The respondent no. 2 thereafter issued a notice in exercise of the powers under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 calling upon the appellants to show cause as to why eviction proceedings under Section 75 of the Rules should not be initiated against the appellants for breach of Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement & Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 which was replied to by the appellants. 2.3 Respondent no. 2 vide order dated 27.10.2008 held that the transaction between the appellants and respondent no. 3 is in violation of the provisions of Land Revenue Code as well as against the provisions of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement & Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 and therefore entries in the revenue record were directed to be cancelled and so also transactions between the appellants and respondent no. 3. Revision Applications were therefore preferred by appellants against the said order passed by respondent no. 2 which was rejected by respondent no. 1. In view of the same, the writ petitions were filed before the learned Single Judge, order impugned whereof has been assailed by way of the present appeals. 3. Mr. 3. Revision Applications were therefore preferred by appellants against the said order passed by respondent no. 2 which was rejected by respondent no. 1. In view of the same, the writ petitions were filed before the learned Single Judge, order impugned whereof has been assailed by way of the present appeals. 3. Mr. Nirupam Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has strongly argued that the learned Single Judge has committed an error by ignoring the fact that none of the authorities have assigned germane, cogent and convincing reasons for initiating suo motu revisional proceedings after a long period of more than two decades. He contended that the mutation entries of the year 1987 came to be taken into suo motu revision in the year 2008 and the said delayed initiation of the proceedings has not been properly explained by the authorities. 3.1 Mr. Nanavaty submitted that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, has relied upon a decision of this Court which was passed in Special Civil Application No. 11825 of 2009. He submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in 2011(2) GLR 1676 against the order passed in the said writ petition reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge therein and therefore the decision of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11825 of 2009 cannot be said to be a good law. He submitted that the Appellate Bench of this Court, while considering the case on hand set aside the decision of the concerned authorities to compulsorily evict the petitioner therein after a lapse of 17 years. 3.2 In order to substantiate his submissions, Mr. Nanavaty has relied upon decisions of this Court in the cases of State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha reported in AIR 1969 SC 1279 as well as Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Others vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2013(2) GLR 1788 . 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleaders appearing for respondent State have supported the impugned orders. It is submitted that mere delay in exercise of powers cannot be held per se illegal and that the person aggrieved has to show that by such belated exercise of powers grave prejudice has been caused to him. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleaders appearing for respondent State have supported the impugned orders. It is submitted that mere delay in exercise of powers cannot be held per se illegal and that the person aggrieved has to show that by such belated exercise of powers grave prejudice has been caused to him. It is further submitted that in view of the suppression of material facts and misleading statements made, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petitions. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides it is borne out that similar issue was decided by this Court in the case of Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2011(2) GLR 1676 . In that case, the transaction was under the Ordinance, like the present case, and though it was found that the transaction was in violation of the very same Ordinance, the authority took action after a long delay of seventeen years. From the said decision, Paras 21 & 23 are reproduced hereunder:- "21. In light of the aforesaid facts of present case, we are of the view that while the conclusion and the decision of the competent and appellate authority holding the transaction in question as void, is in consonance with the provisions of the Ordinance and cannot be faulted, in the interest of justice and equity, it also ought not be overlooked that the impugned action in exercise of the power under Section 75 of the Ordinance to summarily evict the petitioner, after having allowed the transaction to remain alive for 17 years not only ignores the wide chasm between the date of transaction and the dates of the notice and the order, but it also overlooks the fact that the petitioner has continued to put the land to use for agricultural purpose and has not changed the status and nature of the land and that he has also incurred expenditure to improve the quality of soil and invested further amounts for betterment of the land in question. The figures of such expenditure by the petitioner are not available on record, however the respondents have not disputed the said factual assertion by the petitioner. 23. The figures of such expenditure by the petitioner are not available on record, however the respondents have not disputed the said factual assertion by the petitioner. 23. Under the circumstances, upon considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and in light of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the fact that at the time of transaction, the petitioner was agricultural labourer and he purchased the land for agriculture use and since then he has maintained the status of the land and continues to put the land to agricultural use, the decision to compulsorily evict the petitioner after lapse of 17 years (by now almost 30 years) deserves to be set aside." 5.1 The Division Bench of this Court, after considering many other decisions, has held that even if the original transaction is in contravention of the Act, the action of taking such transaction in suo-moto revision, cannot be allowed to stand after a long delay. 5.2 As stated above, in the present case, the competent authority had initiated suo-moto powers, after a period of twenty one years. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision passed in Special Civil Application No. 11825 of 2009 which has been set aside by the Division Bench as observed hereinabove. Even though the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the order passed by the competent and appellate authority holding the transaction in question as void, is in consonance with the provisions of the Ordinance, in the interest of justice and equity, it also ought not be overlooked that the impugned action in exercise of the power under section 75 of the Ordinance to summarily evict the appellants, after having allowed the transaction to remain alive for 21 years not only ignores the wide chasm between the date of transaction and the dates of the notice and the order, but also overlooks the continued possession of the appellants who had put their land to use for agricultural purpose and had not changed the status and nature of the land. 5.3 Apart from the fact that in the present case, there is a delay of about more than twenty years, the respondents are not in a position to offer any plausible explanation for such delay. 5.3 Apart from the fact that in the present case, there is a delay of about more than twenty years, the respondents are not in a position to offer any plausible explanation for such delay. Therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) and Collector as the authorities below could not have exercised suo-moto powers, after an unreasonably long period. Considering the facts of the case and the law laid down by this Court, in my opinion, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 6. In the premises aforesaid, the impugned order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 13443 of 2009 and order dated 18.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications No. 13444 to 13446 of 2009, orders dated 02.12.2009 passed by respondent no. 1 in Revision Applications and 27.10.2008 passed by respondent no. 2 in Suo Motu Revision proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside. The sale deed in favour of the appellants and the subsequent mutation proceedings carried out in favour of the appellants is hereby confirmed. Appeals are allowed accordingly.