Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 318 (GUJ)

STATE OF GUJARAT v. GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL

2015-03-23

R.M.CHHAYA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Ronak Raval, learned AGP for the petitioners-State Authorities and Mr. S.I. Nananvati, learned senior advocate with Mr. Mrugen Purohit, learned advocate for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4. Respondent no.1 being a formal party, though served, no one appears. 2. By way of present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged order dated 28/012010 passed in Revision Application No. TEN.B.S. 18/2009. 3. The facts which can be culled out from the record of the petition are as under: 3.1. The land bearing original survey no.85/3, block no.190, admeasuring hector 0-49-56 sq. mtrs. situated at Bharthan-Vesu (now forming part of Surat City) originally belong to respondent nos.2 and 3. The record reveals that the said land had restrictions provided under Section 70 of the Gujarat Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (for short 'the Act). It further appears from the record that private respondents herein filed an application as provided under Section 70(o) of the Act before the Mamlatdar & ALT for removal of the restrictions of Section 43 of the Act on the ground that their ancestral were tilling the land before 1937-38 as permanent tenants. The said proceedings came to be registered as Tenancy Case No.644/2003 before Mamlatdar, Palasana which culminated into an order of rejection dated 04/04/2005. The record indicates that the said order was challenged before this Court and ultimately proceedings came to be remanded back to the first authority namely Mamlatdar & ALT. The said case was re-registered as new Tenancy Case No.6 of 2008 before the Additional Mamlatdar & ALT, Taluka Choryasi, Surat. Additional Mamlatdar & ALT, Taluka Choryasi, Surat, by an order dated 29/01/2008, was pleased to remove the restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act on the basis of the conclusion that the predecessor of respondent nos.2 and 3 were tilling the land before 1956. The record further indicates that the same was taken into suo moto revision under Section 76A of the Act before District Collector, Surat which came to be registered as Revision Case No.7 of 2008 which culminated into an order dated 24/12/2008 whereby order passed by the Addl. Mamlatdar & ALT came to be quashed and the proceedings were remanded back to the Additional Mamlatdar & ALT. Mamlatdar & ALT came to be quashed and the proceedings were remanded back to the Additional Mamlatdar & ALT. It appears that being aggrieved by the same, the private respondents preferred revision being Revision Application No. TEN.B.S.18/2009 before the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, was pleased to allow the said revision application vide order dated 28/01/2010. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein have preferred present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India which came to be filed by the petitioners on 15/06/2014. 4. Mr. Ronak Raval, learned AGP has taken this Court through the impugned order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 199 , contended that that part of the impugned order by which the District Collector, Surat is directed to regularize the sale, though not objected to, further direction to fix N. A. premium in respect of the suit land as per Jantri rates prevalent as on the date of transaction i.e. 31/01/2008 is erroneous and, therefore, the said direction of fixing the N.A. premium deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Ronak Raval, learned AGP submitted that as present petition is directed only against the premium to be collected and direction to regularize the sale transaction in question which is not raised as enumerated in ground-e of the petition. Mr. Raval, learned AGP, at the outset, further submitted that impugned direction is bad and illegal in light of judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1127 of 2008 which is confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors. (supra) and the premium would be chargeable as per prevailing rate. 5. Per contra, Mr. S.I. Nanavati, learned senior advocate with Mr. Mrugen Purohit, learned advocate for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4, candidely submitted that other similar and identical petitions being Special Civil Application No.10944 of 2012 and allied matters filed by the State has been allowed by issuing certain directions vide judgment and order dated 30/09/2014. Mr. 5. Per contra, Mr. S.I. Nanavati, learned senior advocate with Mr. Mrugen Purohit, learned advocate for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4, candidely submitted that other similar and identical petitions being Special Civil Application No.10944 of 2012 and allied matters filed by the State has been allowed by issuing certain directions vide judgment and order dated 30/09/2014. Mr. Nanavati, learned senior counsel further submitted that in light of the amendment in law by which Section 70(A) has been introduced in the Act, the same procedure may be followed and the petition be allowed with appropriate directions. 6. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors. (supra) and on perusal of the judgment rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.10944 of 2012 and allied matters, the petition, as prayed for, deserves to be allowed and directions issued by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the impugned order to fix the N.A. premium in respect of the land in question as per Jantri rate as on date of sale transaction i.e. 31/01/2008 deserves to be quashed. 7. Considering the aforesaid, following directions are given: 1) The Collector shall consider the application, if any, made by the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt or production of this order, keeping in mind the directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court as well as the amendment in the Tenancy Act namely Section 70 of the Act. 2) The Collector shall re-fix the premium as per the prevailing policy of the Government and shall determine the premium as stated above within a period of 90 days thereafter. 3) The private respondent shall pay premium that may be decided by the Collector within time stipulated by the Collector. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition is allowed partly to the aforesaid extent in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in LPA No.408/2014. It is also clarified that while deciding the applications the Respondent Collector/State Government shall keep in mind the observations made in the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 23.9.2014 in LPA 408/2014 in SCA 10553/2012 and allied matters. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.