Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1084 (GUJ)

Rameshbhai Chelshanker Oza v. Jagjivan Kalidas

2018-09-12

B.M.TRIVEDI

body2018
JUDGMENT : B.M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. Both the petitions have been filed by the same petitioner Rameshbhai Chelshanker Oza, claiming to be the banakhat-holder of the subject land bearing Revenue Survey No. 385/1 situated at Village Pal, District Surat. Hence, both the petitions were heard together with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner has mainly prayed for the following reliefs in Special Civil Application No. 538 Of 2015:- “16(A) Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside order dated 22.12.2014 Annexure-F to this petition dated 22.12.2014 by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious and contrary to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the observations made by this Hon’ble Court order dated 7.11.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No. 15773 of 2014 and be further pleased to direct respondent authorities to decide Appeal No. 1 of 2012, new number 10 of 2012 on merits after hearing the petitioner and pass a reasoned order by directing the authorities to restore the file of Appeal No. 1 of 2012, new number 10 of 2012 to its original file to its original position. (B) Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow this petition and be further pleased to set aside order dated 22.12.2014 Annexure-F to this petition and be further pleased to set aside all consequential acts and orders done and passed on the basis of the Deputy Collector order dated 22.12.2014 Annexure-F to this petition.” 3. The petitioner has mainly prayed for the following reliefs in Special Civil Application No. 16159 Of 2017:- “21(A) Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the development permission dated 23.3.2015 granted by Surat Municipal Corporation in breach of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court. (B) Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order dated 9.3.2016 passed by Surat Municipal Corporation by directing Surat Municipal Corporation to decide the representation, 21.8.2015 followed by another representation dated 25.8.2015 strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated time that deem fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court and be further pleased to direct the respondents to communicate the decision to petitioner.” 4. Both the petitions have been resisted by the concerned respondents by filing their respective affidavits-in-reply to which the petitioner has filed affidavits-in-rejoinder. 5. Though both the petitions have been drafted in a very vague and incomprehensible manner, not stating the correct and material facts, the following facts and chronology of proceedings emerging from the affidavits-in-reply filed by the respondents and the rejoinder filed thereto by the petitioner would show as to how the process of law has been abused and misused by the petitioner, as a Banakhat holder, by filing the proceedings one after the other- (i) One Nagarbhai Khushalbhai was the owner of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 381, 385, 386 and 387/2. On the death of the said Nagarbhai on 26.6.1944 the names of his legal heirs namely (1) Lallu Nagar, (2) Thakor Nagar, (3) Nagin Nagar and (4) Manilal Nagar came to be mutated in the Revenue Record by Entry No. 888. (ii) On the partition having been made of the said land, on 7.11.1948 a Revenue Entry No. 1015 came to be made, under which the land bearing Survey No. 385 paiki admeasuring 1 acres 16 gunthas was shown in the name of Nagin Nagar. (iii) At the relevant time, name of one Ratanji Govindji was shown as the tenant in respect of the said land, however, since he was not cultivating the land, his name was deleted vide order dated 16.2.1954 and the Revenue Entry No. 3061 in that regard was made on 20.6.1959. His name also came to be deleted vide Entry No. 4047. His name also came to be deleted vide Entry No. 4047. (iv) It appears that one Jagjivan Kalidas was cultivating the said land bearing Survey No. 385/1 as a tenant and was in possession of the said land, and therefore, tenancy proceedings were initiated for all the lands, including the lands in question, whereby the lands in question came to be granted to the said Jagjivan Kalidas in the year 1976 under the provisions contained in Section 32(o) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The purchase price in respect of the said land came to be fixed at Rs. 3,250/- as per the order dated 21st October 1976 in Tenancy Case No. 32(o)/1844/1976. The said order remained unchallenged at the instance of the original owner Naginbhai Nagarbhai. The said tenant Jagjivan Kalidas made payment of Rs.3,284/- on 5.1.1977, which was received by the owner Naginbhai Nagarbhai. The certificate in Form No. 9 was also issued in favour of the said Jagjivan. The Revenue Entry being No. 3669 in respect of the said certificate was also certified on 1.6.1977 in favour of the said Jagjivan and the name of the land owner Naginbhai was deleted. (v) The Block No. 360 came to be given to the lands bearing Survey Nos. 385/1, 386 and 387/2 in 1980. On the death of the said Jagjivan Kalidas, the name of his heirs namely Naniben W/o. of Jagjivan, Hitendra Jagjivan and Praful Jagjivan came to be recorded in the Revenue Record vide Entry No. 4036 on 8.8.1988. The said lands being new tenure land, the said legal heirs of Jagjivan Kalidas paid premium of Rs.3,76,55,200/- to the Government on 15.3.2012 for converting it into old tenure land and further paid Rs.85,580/- to the Collector on 14.5.2012 for converting the said block No. 360 from agricultural use to non-agricultural use. (vi) On 27.6.2012, the respondent Pearl Developers purchased the said land of Block No. 360 (i.e. Survey No. 385/1, 386 and 387/2) from the said Naniben, Hintendra Jagjivanbhai and Praful Jagjivanbhai the legal heirs of the said Jagjivan Kalidas by way of registered sale deed for Rs.9,41,38,002/-. (vi) On 27.6.2012, the respondent Pearl Developers purchased the said land of Block No. 360 (i.e. Survey No. 385/1, 386 and 387/2) from the said Naniben, Hintendra Jagjivanbhai and Praful Jagjivanbhai the legal heirs of the said Jagjivan Kalidas by way of registered sale deed for Rs.9,41,38,002/-. (vii) It appears that though the tenancy proceedings had attained finality as back as in the year 1977, in favour of the tenant Jagjivan Kalidas, the legal heirs of the original owner Naginbhai Nagar executed one power-of-attorney in favour of one Gunvantbhai Chabildas Sukaramwala in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 385/1 on 9.6.2006. The said power-of-attorney holder of the legal heirs of Naginbhai Nagar executed an agreement to sell the land in question in favour of the present petitioner Rameshbhai Chelshanker Oza on 31.5.2011. (viii) It further appears that the legal heirs of Naginbhai Nagar thereafter made two representations on 18.4.2011 and 7.10.2011 to the Collector in respect of the order dated 21.10.1976 passed by the competent authority in the Tenancy Proceedings being No. 32(o)/1822/1976 which had stood culminated in favour of tenant Jagjivan Kalidas. Since the said representations were not being decided, the said legal heirs of Naginbhai filed writ petition being SCA No. 14895 of 2011. This Court vide the order dated 20th October 2011 directed the authority to decide the said representations. Pending the said consideration of the representations, the present petitioner along with the power-of-attorney holder Gunvantbhai Chabildas Sukaramwala of the legal heirs of late Naginbhai Nagar filed an appeal being Tenancy No. 1/2012 on 10.2.2012, challenging the order dated 21.10.1976 passed in the Tenancy proceedings before the Deputy Collector, Surat i.e. after more than 38 years. The Collector, Surat thereafter rejected the said two representations dated 18.2.2011 and 7.10.2011, vide the order dated 3.9.2012 on the ground of the said legal heirs having availed of the alternative remedy. (ix) The said legal heirs of Naginbhai filed a petition being Special Civil Application No. 11899 of 2013, challenging the said order dated 3.9.2012 passed by the Collector. The said Special Civil Application came to be rejected by this Court vide the order dated 3.10.2013. (ix) The said legal heirs of Naginbhai filed a petition being Special Civil Application No. 11899 of 2013, challenging the said order dated 3.9.2012 passed by the Collector. The said Special Civil Application came to be rejected by this Court vide the order dated 3.10.2013. In the Letters Patent Appeal being No. 1247 of 2013 filed by the legal heirs of Naginbhai against the order dated 3.10.2013, the Division Bench at the first hearing on 23.10.2013 disposed of the said LPA directing the parties to maintain status-quo till the Deputy Collector was able to take up for consideration the application for grant of interim relief in the pending appeal i.e. Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 2012. (x) It is pertinent to note that the respondent Pearl Developers was not party either in the SCA No. 11899 of 2013 or in LPA No. 1247 of 2013. The respondent Pearl Developers therefore filed Review Application being Misc. Civil Application No. 1384 of 2014 for reviewing the order dated 23rd October 2013 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 1247 of 2013, as the said order was passed without impleading the said respondent, who was the owner and occupier of the land in question by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 27.06.2012. The said MCA was disposed of by the Division Bench on 18.7.2014 directing the Deputy Collector to decide the Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 2012 (New No. 10 of 2012) within two months. (xi) The legal heirs of Naginbhai Nagar, who had executed power-of-attorney in favour of Gunvant Chabildas Sukaramwala cancelled the said power-of-attorney as per the affidavit notarized on 19.8.2014. It appears that the present petitioner in the meantime filed Special Civil Suit No. 121 of 2014 against the legal heirs of the said Nagin Nagar seeking specific performance of the agreement executed by their said power-of-attorney holder Gunvantbhai. (xii) It further appears that the petitioner had filed an application for being joined as party opponent in the proceedings in Appeal No. 1 of 2012, however, no decision was being taken on the said application and hence, the petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No. 15773 of 2014. (xii) It further appears that the petitioner had filed an application for being joined as party opponent in the proceedings in Appeal No. 1 of 2012, however, no decision was being taken on the said application and hence, the petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No. 15773 of 2014. The said Special Civil Application was disposed of vide order dated 7.11.2014 by the Court recording the statement of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner did not press for the petition as the grievance of the petitioner was already redressed. (xiii) The said appeal being No. 1 of 2012 (New No. 10 of 2012) thereafter was sought to be disposed of by the legal heirs of Late Naginbhai Nagarbhai by submitting that they had filed separate Tenancy Appeal No. 28 of 2014. The Deputy Collector, City Prant Surat, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties including the petitioner, disposed of the same vide the order dated 22.12.2014 on the ground that the said legal heirs of Naginbhai had filed separate appeal. (xiv) Being aggrieved by the said order dated 22.12.2014 passed in Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 2012, the petitioner had preferred the present Special Civil Application No. 538 of 2015. The Court while issuing notice in this petition, directed to continue the status-quo, which was earlier granted by the Division Bench till the Deputy Collector decided the issue. (xv) The respondent - Pearl Developers in the meantime, had filed an application to the Surat Municipal Corporation seeking development permission to develop the land in question. The said application was objected by the daughters of the late Naginbhai Nagarbhai. The Additional City Engineer (Civil), Surat Municipal Corporation vide the order dated 23.03.2015 after hearing the objectors, rejected their objections. The said order remained unchallenged by the said Objectors. Thereafter, the Town Development Department of Surat Municipal Corporation, granted the development permission to the respondent Pearl Developers under the provisions contained in the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act and under the BPMC Act, vide the order dated 01.06.2015. (xvi) The petitioner, thereafter made an application on 21.08.2015 followed by 25.08.2015 to the Surat Municipal Corporation seeking cancellation of the development permission granted to the respondent Pearl Developers. (xvi) The petitioner, thereafter made an application on 21.08.2015 followed by 25.08.2015 to the Surat Municipal Corporation seeking cancellation of the development permission granted to the respondent Pearl Developers. According to the petitioner, the said applications/representations of the petitioner were not being considered by the Commissioner, and therefore, he filed Special Civil Application No. 15068 of 2015 without joining the respondent Pearl Developers as the party respondent. The said petition came to be disposed of by the Court at the first hearing on 18.09.2015 by directing the respondent authorities to consider the said representations of the petitioner in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. (xvii) The respondent Corporation thereafter issued notice to the petitioner on 02.11.2015 to remain present on 05.11.2015, in view of the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 15068 of 2015, however, the petitioner did not remain present, and therefore, the respondent Corporation again issued notice on 22.12.2015 for remaining present on 28.12.2015. However, the petitioner again did not remain present nor submitted any documents, and hence, the Additional City Engineer (City) Surat Municipal Corporation vide the order dated 13.01.2016, rejected the applications/representations made by the petitioner on 21.08.2015 and 25.08.2015. (xviii) Being aggrieved by the said order dated 13.01.2016, the petitioner again preferred the petition being Special Civil Application No. 1158 of 2016, again without making the respondent developers as the party respondent in the said petition. The said petition also came to be disposed of vide the order dated 02.02.2016, directing the petitioner to remain present before the competent authority of the respondent Corporation on 09.02.2016 and directing the authority to hear the petitioner on the said date and take appropriate decision without being influenced by the earlier order dated 13.01.2016. (xix) The Commissioner Surat Municipal Corporation after hearing the petitioner as directed by the Court, rejected the applications of the petitioner dated 21.08.2015 and 25.08.2015 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce any documents as regards his ownership in respect of the land in question, vide the order dated 09.03.2016. (xx) Though the Special Civil Application No. 1158 of 2016 was already disposed of on 02.02.2016, the petitioner filed Misc. Civil Application No. 1094 of 2014, in the said Special Civil Application No. 1158 of 2016 challenging the order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Surat Municipal Corporation. The said Misc. (xx) Though the Special Civil Application No. 1158 of 2016 was already disposed of on 02.02.2016, the petitioner filed Misc. Civil Application No. 1094 of 2014, in the said Special Civil Application No. 1158 of 2016 challenging the order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Surat Municipal Corporation. The said Misc. Civil Application No. 1094 of 2016 came to be disposed of by the Court vide the order dated 11.04.2017 recording the fact that the impugned order dated 09.03.2016 was passed after the order was passed in Special Civil Application No. 1158 of 2016. The Court therefore permitted the petitioner to take appropriate legal recourse against the order dated 09.03.2016. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition being Special Civil Application No. 16159 of 2017 challenging the order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner, as also the order dated 23.03.2015, whereby the Objection Application of the daughters of Naginbhai was rejected by the Additional City Engineer, Surat Municipal Corporation. (xxi) It appears that the petitioner had also filed contempt proceedings being Misc. Civil Application No. 3712 of 2016, alleging inter alia that the said development permission was granted by the Corporation though the Court had passed the order of status-quo. The said Misc. Civil Application came to be disposed of by the Division Bench by passing the following order on 12.07.2018:- “1. Heard Mr. Yatin Oza, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajesh K. Savjani, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Dhaval G. Nanavati, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Tulshi R. Savani, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. After the matter was heard for some length, learned counsel appearing for the applicant made a request to dispose of the matter as not pressed. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents objected to the request made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 3. As we also do not find any merit in the allegation of the applicant that the respondents have willfully and deliberately violated any of the directions issued by this Court, attracting the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, we accept the request made by the learned counsel for the applicant and dismiss this application as not pressed. No order as to costs.” 6. No order as to costs.” 6. Before dealing with both the petitions on merits, it may be stated that after the arguments were concluded in the present proceedings, the learned advocate for the petitioner had sought to submit a draft amendment in Special Civil Application No. 16159 of 2017, which was rejected by the Court vide the order dated 09.08.2018. It appears from the record that earlier also the petitioner had submitted a draft amendment in the Special Civil Application No. 538 of 2015, running into about 20 pages along with the documents running into about 80 pages, pertaining to some entries made in the year 1944, and some orders passed by the revenue authorities during those years. The copies of the said draft amendment appear to have been served to the learned advocates for the respondents, however, the learned advocate Mr. Oza for the petitioner had not referred to or relied upon or made any submissions on the said draft amendment, and therefore, the same is deemed not to have pressed for by him. It is needless to say that all the facts, particulars and documents necessary to challenge the action of the respondents need to be incorporated in the petition itself at the first instance, when the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was being invoked by the petitioner. Minor or genuine omission, addition or correction of facts may be allowed by the Court in the interest of justice, however, no amendment sought with mala fide intention at a grossly belated stage, for incorporating the facts which were already within the knowledge of petitioner, could be allowed. 7. From the aforestated facts which have emerged from the record of both the petitions, it clearly appears that the petitioner Mr. Ramesh Oza has not only tried to misuse and abuse the process of law by filing one after the other petitions and the proceedings before this Court and before the respondent authorities, for keeping the issues alive, but he had also tried to mislead the courts by not stating the correct and full facts in the earlier petitions and by not impleading the concerned respondents, more particularly the respondent - Pearl Developers as party respondents in the said petitions. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner claiming to be the banakhat holder in respect of the land in question, by virtue of the agreement dated 09.06.2006 allegedly executed by one Gunwanbhai Chabildass Sukramwala as the power of attorney holder of the legal heirs of the original owner Naginbhai Nagarbhai, kept on filing such vexatious petitions and proceedings. It is needless to say that mere agreement to sell does not create right, title or interest in favour of any person, and in the instant case, the agreement to sell was allegedly executed by the power of attorney holder of the legal heirs of late Naginbhai, who had never challenged during his life time the tenancy proceedings which had culminated in favour of the tenant Jagjivanbhai as back as in the year 1976 in respect of the subject land. 8. Though the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Yatin Oza had vehemently submitted that the respondents more particularly the legal heirs of the late Naginbhai Nagarbhai had committed fraud by not pressing for the Tenancy Appeal No. 01 of 2012, in order to circumvent the order passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1247 of 2013, directing the parties to maintain status-quo till the Deputy Collector was able to take up application for grant of interim relief in the Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 2012, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner himself had committed fraud on Court and on authorities, as also on the respondents, by not stating the correct facts and by not impleading the concerned respondents who were the affected parties, in the earlier petitions, and thereafter dragging them in the litigations one after the other including the contempt proceedings. Such conduct on the part of the petitioners not only deserves to be deprecated but deserves to be dealt with stern action. 9. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza has placed heavy reliance on various decisions of Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. Such conduct on the part of the petitioners not only deserves to be deprecated but deserves to be dealt with stern action. 9. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza has placed heavy reliance on various decisions of Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. And Others reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 , in case of Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and Others reported in (2003) 8 SCC 311 , in case of Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Others reported in (2003) 8 SCC 319 , to submit that any order obtained by fraud is a nullity and once fraud is proved, it will deprive the person of all advantages and benefits obtained. In the opinion of the Court, if the facts and conduct of the petitioner are closely seen, the said decisions are more applicable to the petitioner than to the respondents. It is held in case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra) that: “15........... The principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.” 10. In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley (1056) 1 ALL ER 341, the Court of Appeal stated the law thus: “I cannot accede to this argument for a moment. No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever;” 11. In case of Ram Chandra Singh (supra), it was held as under:- “15. Commission of fraud on court and suppression of material facts are the core issues involved in these matters. Fraud as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. 16. Fraud is a conduct either by-letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by word or letter. 17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. 18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud of law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. 19. In Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 AC 337, it was held “In an action of deceit the plaintiff must prove actual fraud. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly, without caring whether it be true or false. A false statement, made through carelessness and without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, may be evidence of fraud but does not necessarily amount to fraud. Such a statement, if made in the honest belief that it is true, is not fraudulent and does not render the person making it liable to an action of deceit.” 20. A false statement, made through carelessness and without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, may be evidence of fraud but does not necessarily amount to fraud. Such a statement, if made in the honest belief that it is true, is not fraudulent and does not render the person making it liable to an action of deceit.” 20. In Kerr on Fraud and Mistake, at P.23, it is stated: “The true and only sound principle to be derived from the cases represented by Slim v. Croucher (1960) 1 De Gf & J 518, is this: that a representation is fraudulent not only when the person making it knows it to be false, but also when, as Jessel, M.R., pointed out, he ought to have known, or must be taken to have known, that it was false. This is a sound and intelligible principle, and is, moreover, not inconsistent with Berry v. Peek. A false statement which a person ought to have known was false, and which he must therefore be taken to have known was false, cannot be said to be honestly believed in. ‘A consideration of the grounds of belief;, said Lord Harschell, ‘is no doubt an important aid in ascertaining whether the belief was really entertained. A man’s mere assertion that he believed the statement he made to be true is not accepted as conclusive proof that he did so. ‘“ 21. In Bigelow on Fraudulent Conveyances, at P. 1 it is stated: “If on the facts the average man would have intended wrong, that is enough.” It was further opined: “This conception of fraud (and since it is not the writer’s, he may speak of it without diffidence), steadily kept in view, will render the administration of the law less difficult, or rather will make its administration more effective. Further, not to enlarge upon the last matter, it will do away with much of the prevalent confusion in regard to ‘moral’ fraud, a confusion which, in addition to other things, often causes lawyers to take refuge behind such convenient and indeed useful but often obscure language as ‘fraud upon the law’. What is fraud upon the law? Fraud can be committed only against a being capable of rights, and ‘fraud upon the law’ darkens counsel. What is fraud upon the law? Fraud can be committed only against a being capable of rights, and ‘fraud upon the law’ darkens counsel. What is really aimed at in most cases by this obscure contrast between moral fraud and fraud upon the law, is a contrast between fraud in the individual’s intention to commit the wrong and fraud as seen in the obvious tendency of the ct in question.” 12. As stated hereinabove, though not disclosed in the present petitions, it has come on the record that the petitioner is claiming his right by virtue of an agreement to sell allegedly executed by Gunwanbhai Chabildass Sukramwala, the then power of attorney holder of the legal heirs of the original owner late Shri Naginbhai Nagarbhai. The said Naginbhai Nagarbhai during his lifetime, had never challenged the proceedings conducted under section 32(o) of the Tenancy Act, at the instance of by the tenant Jagjivan Kalidass, in which the purchase price in respect of the land in question was fixed and the certificate of tenancy was issued in favour of the said tenant Jagjivan Kalidas way back in the year 1976. The revenue entry being No. 3669 was also certified on 01.06.1977 in favour of the said Jagjivan Kalidass, deleting the name of said Naginbhai Nagarbhai as the owner on the basis of the said certificate. On the death of said Jagj ivan Kalidass, the names of his heirs were mutated in the revenue record vide the entry No. 4036 on 08.08.1988. The said legal heirs of Jagj ivan Kalidass paid premium of more than three crores to the Government on 15.03.2012 for converting the said land from new tenure to old tenure, and further paid about Rs. 85,000/- to the Collector on 14.05.2012 for converting the block No. 360 which included the land in question from agricultural to non-agricultural use. Thereafter, the respondent Pearl Developers purchased the said block No. 360 i.e. Survey No. 385/1, 386 and 387/2, from the said legal heirs of Jagjivanbhai i.e. Naniben, Hitendrabhai and Prafulbhai by executing registered sale deed on 27.06.2012 for Rs. 9,41,38,002/- (Rs. Nine Crores Forty one Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand and Two). 13. Thereafter, the respondent Pearl Developers purchased the said block No. 360 i.e. Survey No. 385/1, 386 and 387/2, from the said legal heirs of Jagjivanbhai i.e. Naniben, Hitendrabhai and Prafulbhai by executing registered sale deed on 27.06.2012 for Rs. 9,41,38,002/- (Rs. Nine Crores Forty one Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand and Two). 13. However, the legal heirs of the original owner Naginbhai thereafter appear to have risen from their slumber after about 35 years in the year 2011, and they filed representations to the Deputy Collector against the order dated 21.10.1976 passed in the tenancy proceedings which had stood culminated in favour of the tenant Jagjivan Kalidas in the year 1976, and which had remained unchallenged at the instance of their father Naginbhai. The power of attorney holder of the said legal heirs i.e. Gunwantbhai thereafter filed the appeal being No. 1 of 2012 on 10.02.2012 challenging the said order dated 21.10.1976 before the Deputy Collector, Surat i.e. almost after 36 years. 14. It further appears that the said legal heirs of Naginbhai Nagarbhai had cancelled the said power of attorney executed in favour of said Gunwanbhai Chabildass Sukramwala as the said power of attorney holder had allegedly misused the said power of attorney. As stated earlier, the present petitioner claims to be the banakhat holder in respect of the agreement allegedly executed by the said power of attorney holder Gunwanbhai Chabildass Sukramwala in the year 2006, and the petitioner under the guise of banakhat holder kept on filing aforestated proceedings before this Court and before the various authorities. The aforestated chronology of events clearly establishes his mala fide intention and desperation to get the land anyhow by creating hurdles in the development of land in question purchased by the respondent Pearl Developers from the legal heirs of the original tenant Jagjivan Kalidass by executing the registered sale deed in the year 2012. 15. The aforestated chronology of events clearly establishes his mala fide intention and desperation to get the land anyhow by creating hurdles in the development of land in question purchased by the respondent Pearl Developers from the legal heirs of the original tenant Jagjivan Kalidass by executing the registered sale deed in the year 2012. 15. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 538 of 2015 has challenged the order dated 22.12.2014 mainly on the ground that the said order was passed contrary to the direction given by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1247 of 2013, arising out of Special Civil Application No. 11899 of 2013 filed by the legal heirs of Naginbhai, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status-quo till the Deputy Collector was able to take up for consideration the application for interim relief in the pending Appeal No. 1 of 2012. In the said proceedings of Letters Patent Appeal, neither the Municipal Corporation nor the respondent Pearl Developers were made the party-respondents. In the Special Civil Application No. 15773 of 2014 filed by the petitioner, for consideration of his application in the Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 2012 pending before the Deputy Collector, this Court had simply disposed of the same recording the statement of learned advocate for the petitioner that his grievance was already redressed. Of course, while disposing of the said Special Civil Application No. 15773 of 2014, the Court had expected that the respondent authority would hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits in the said Appeal No. 1 of 2012. In the said petition also, neither Municipal Corporation nor the respondent Developer was made party by the petitioner. In any case, the Court did not prevent the appellants in the said appeal, from not pressing for the said appeal or prevent the respondent authority from passing the order thereon. 16. Now, as transpiring from the impugned order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector (Annexure ‘F’ to the Special Civil Application No. 538 of 2015), the hearing of the said Appeal was adjourned from time to time, however ultimately it was disposed of after considering the contentions raised by all the parties to the said appeal proceedings, including the present petitioner. It has been recorded in the said order that during the course of hearing, learned advocate for the appellants i.e. the heirs of Naginbhai had submitted that the said appeal was filed by the power of attorney holder Gunwantbhai Chabildass Sukramwala of the appellants, however, they had cancelled the said power of attorney, and that the appellants had already preferred a separate appeal, and therefore, the present appeal deserved to be disposed of. The Deputy Collector, thereafter, taking into consideration the submissions made by and on behalf of all the parties, disposed of the said appeal by passing detailed order mainly on the ground that the appellants had preferred separate appeal being No. 28 of 2014. 17. The said order dated 22.12.2014 having been passed by the respondent - Deputy Collector after considering the orders passed by this Court in the petitions filed by the petitioner as well as by the legal heirs of the original owners Nagainbhai Nagarbhai, and after considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties, and also keeping the right of the petitioner open to file appropriate application for being impleaded in the separate appeal filed by the legal heirs of the original owners, the Court does not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector. The Court fails to appreciate as to how the fraud was committed by any of the respondents, more particularly the respondent Developer, as sought to be submitted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza for the petitioner, if the said Appeal was disposed of by the respondent authority after considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of submissions of all the concerned parties. 18. The Division Bench, while disposing of the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1247 of 2013 at the first instance had directed the parties to maintain status-quo till the Deputy Collector was able to take up the said Appeal for interim relief. Admittedly, the said Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the legal heirs of Naginbhai, and neither the respondent Corporation nor the respondent Developer was a party in the said Letters Patent Appeal. Hence, the question of the said respondents making misrepresentation or committing fraud did not arise at the time when the respondent Deputy Collector disposed of the said Appeal by passing detail order. Hence, the question of the said respondents making misrepresentation or committing fraud did not arise at the time when the respondent Deputy Collector disposed of the said Appeal by passing detail order. On the contrary, the Court is of the opinion that by not disclosing the correct facts and by not impleading the concerned respondents, though affected, in the petitions and the Letters Patent Appeal, the petitioner had misused and abused the process of law. 19. In that view of the matter, the Special Civil Application No. 538 of 2015 deserves to be dismissed. 20. So far as the other petition being Special Civil Application No. 16159 of 2017 is concerned, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.03.2015, passed by the Additional City Engineer (Civil) Surat Municipal Corporation, rejecting the objections filed by the two daughters of original owner Naginbhai Nagarbhai, against grant of development permission to the respondent - Pearl Developers in respect of the lands in question. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Surat Municipal Corporation rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking cancellation of the said development permission granted to the respondent - Pearl Developers. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the respondent - Municipal Corporation had already granted the development permission to the respondent - Pearl Developers under the provisions contained in the Gujarat Town Planning Act and BPMC Act vide the order dated 01.06.2015 subject to the conditions mentioned therein, however, the said permission was not challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. It was only when during the course of final arguments of the present petitions, a draft amendment was sought to be moved by the learned advocate for the petitioners with a view to defeat the argument of learned advocate for the respondent Developer that the said permission was not challenged by the petitioner. The said draft amendment has been rejected by the Court by passing the order on 09.08.2018. 21. In this regard, it was vehemently sought to be submitted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza for the petitioner that the respondent Corporation and the respondent Developer had committed contempt of Court as the Division Bench had passed the order on 23.10.2013 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1247 of 2013 directing the parties to maintain status-quo till the Tenancy Appeal was taken up for hearing by the Deputy Collector. Oza for the petitioner that the respondent Corporation and the respondent Developer had committed contempt of Court as the Division Bench had passed the order on 23.10.2013 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1247 of 2013 directing the parties to maintain status-quo till the Tenancy Appeal was taken up for hearing by the Deputy Collector. In this regard, it may be stated that neither the respondent Corporation nor the respondent Developer was party in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1247 of 2013 arising out of Special Civil Application No. 11899 of 2013. Further, the petitioner had already filed the Misc. Civil Application for the contempt allegedly committed by the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, and the same was not pressed for by him as transpiring from the order reproduced herein earlier. Hence, this Court is not required to deal with or decide the issue whether any of the respondents had committed any contempt or not, however, it may be noted that the said development permission was granted by the respondent authority on 01.06.2015 after the rejection of the objections applications filed by the daughters of the original owner Naginbhai Nagarbhai vide the order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the Additional City Engineer (Civil), Surat Municipal Corporation. As stated earlier, the said order dated 23.03.2015 had remained unchallenged at the instance of the said objectors i.e. the daughters of Naginbhai. 22. The petitioner thereafter had made representation dated 21.08.2015 followed by 25.08.2015 to the Commissioner, Surat Municipal Corporation, to cancel the development permission granted to the respondent - Pearl Developers, and then filed Special Civil Application No. 15068 of 2015 on 18.09.2015 seeking directions against the respondent Corporation to consider the said representation of the petitioner. In the said petition also, the respondent - Pearl Developers was not made party. The said petition was disposed of on 18.09.2015 directing the respondent Corporation to consider the said representation in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the respondent Corporation issued notice to the petitioner to remain present on 05.11.2015, however, the petitioner did not remain present. The said petition was disposed of on 18.09.2015 directing the respondent Corporation to consider the said representation in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the respondent Corporation issued notice to the petitioner to remain present on 05.11.2015, however, the petitioner did not remain present. The respondent Corporation again issued notice to the petitioner to remain present on 28.12.2015, however, again he did not remain present, and therefore, the Additional City Engineer, Surat Municipal Corporation rejected the said representations of the petitioner vide the order dated 13.01.2016 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce any documents with regard to his ownership in respect of the lands in question. The petitioner again challenged the said order dated 13.01.2016 by filing Special Civil Application No. 1158 of 2016, without making the respondent - Pearl Developers as party. The said petition also came to be disposed of vide the order dated 02.02.2016 directing the petitioner to appear before the respondent Corporation on 09.02.2016 and directing the Corporation to hear the petitioner on 09.02.2016 and take appropriate decision without being influenced by the order dated 13.01.2016 passed by the Additional City Engineer strictly on merits. 23. The Commissioner, Surat Municipal Corporation, thereafter heard the petitioner, however, the petitioner having failed to produce any document with regard to his ownership in respect of the lands in question, held vide order dated 09.03.2016 that the order passed by Additional City Engineer on 13.01.2016 was just and proper. It was also held that there was no legal reason to cancel the development permission granted to the respondent - Pearl Developers, and therefore, the submissions of the petitioner to cancel the said permission could not be accepted. Now, though the order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the concerned Officer of the respondent Corporation rejecting the objections raised by the daughters of Naginbhai, had remained unchallenged at their instance, the same has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition along with the order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the respondent Corporation. The said order having been passed after taking into consideration all the factual and legal aspects, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order. The said order having been passed after taking into consideration all the factual and legal aspects, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order. As observed in the said order, the petitioner had failed to produce any documents showing his ownership right in respect of the lands in question, and therefore, the respondent authorities had rightly found no substance in the said application of the petitioner seeking cancellation of the development permission. 24. In that view of the matter, the Court also does not find any substance in Special Civil Application No. 16159 of 2017. Hence, both the petitions being devoid of substance, are dismissed. 25. As the Court has found that the petitioner has misused and abused the process of law by filing vexatious petitions one after the other, without any legal right and that too by not disclosing the true and correct facts, both the petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- each, to be deposited with the Legal Service Authority, High Court within one week from today. Interim relief, if any operating, stands vacated forthwith. Further Order: The request of the learned advocate for the petitioner to continue the interim relief, is rejected for the reasons stated in the judgment.