Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1007 (GUJ)

Mohmmad Hanif Ahmed Shaikh v. State of Gujarat

2019-10-21

V.M.PANCHOLI

body2019
ORDER : V.M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pathan for the petitioner, learned senior advocate Mr. Sanjanwala assisted by learned advocate Mr. Kanojia for the respondent nos. 2 to 4, learned advocate Mr. Chhaya for respondent no. 7 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Kanara for respondent-State. 2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.9.2016 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN/BS/191/2014, whereby the Tribunal has rejected the application given by the petitioner for joining him as party respondent in the said revision application. Learned advocate Mr. Pathan appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the proceedings under Section 84C of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("Tenancy Act' for short) was initiated by the Mamlatdar and ALT at the instance of the present petitioner against respondent no. 7 - Ashish Dhansukhlal Modi. Mamlatdar and ALT passed an order on 9.4.2014 by which various parcels of land of respondent no. 7 were ordered to be vested in the government as the said lands were purchased in violation of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. It is submitted that the present petitioner was party in the said proceedings. It is further submitted that respondent no. 7-Ashish Modi challenged the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT by filing Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 2014 before the Deputy Collector. The present petitioner was a caveator in the said proceedings. Deputy Collector rejected the appeal filed by respondent no. 7. It is further submitted that respondent no. 7 has filed Revision Application no. 183 of 2014 before the Tribunal wherein respondent no. 7 has joined the present petitioner as party respondent no. 3. 3. At this stage, it is contended that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 have purchased the land in question from respondent no. 7 and therefore they have separately filed Revision Application no. 191 of 2014 before the Tribunal. In the said revision application, the present petitioner is not joined as party respondent. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred application for joining him as party respondent. However, by impugned order dated 28.9.2016, the Tribunal has rejected the application. The petitioner has therefore filed the present petition. 4. Learned advocate Mr. 191 of 2014 before the Tribunal. In the said revision application, the present petitioner is not joined as party respondent. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred application for joining him as party respondent. However, by impugned order dated 28.9.2016, the Tribunal has rejected the application. The petitioner has therefore filed the present petition. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Pathan would submit that when the petitioner was party before Mamlatdar and ALT as well as Deputy Collector, the present respondent nos. 2 to 4 ought to have joined the petitioner as party respondent in revision application filed by them. He would also contend that the petitioner filed the petition being Special Civil Application No. 6765 of 2016 before this Court and prayed that both the revision application i.e. Revision Application no. 191 of 2014 as well as 183 of 2014 be heard together. This Court vide order dated 26.8.2016 directed the Tribunal to hear both the aforesaid revision applications together. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal be set aside and the petitioner be ordered to be joined as party respondent in the revision application filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 4. 5. On the other hand, learned senior advocate Mr. Sanjanwala would contend that the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the land in question purchased by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 from respondent no. 7. The petitioner has worked as whistle blower and on the basis of the representation made by him, proceedings were initiated by the Mamlatdar and ALT against respondent no. 7. Even before the Deputy Collector, the petitioner was a caveator but he had no right, title or interest in the land in question and therefore the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application given by the petitioner. It is, therefore, urged that no error is committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order and therefore this petition be dismissed. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Chhaya appearing for the respondent no. 7 referred to the memo of revision application filed by respondent no. 7 and pointed out that with a view to match the title, the petitioner is joined as party respondent no. 3 in the revision application. Learned advocate has referred to ground (f) and (i) of the memo of revision application filed by respondent no. 7. 7 referred to the memo of revision application filed by respondent no. 7 and pointed out that with a view to match the title, the petitioner is joined as party respondent no. 3 in the revision application. Learned advocate has referred to ground (f) and (i) of the memo of revision application filed by respondent no. 7. It is, therefore, contended that the present petitioner is not a necessary and proper party to the revision application filed by respondent nos. 2 to 4 and therefore this petition be dismissed. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has also supported the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the private respondents. 7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it is revealed that the proceedings are initiated by Mamlatdar and ALT under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act against respondent no. 7 on the basis of the application given by the petitioner. However, it is fairly admitted by learned advocate Mr. Pathan appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has acted as whistle blower and in fact he has no right, title or interest in the land in question. The only submission canvassed by learned advocate for the petitioner is that the petitioner was a party before the concerned authorities and therefore his presence is required for deciding the revision application filed by respondent nos. 2 to 4. However, this Court is of the view that when the petitioner is not having any right, title or interest in the land in question, his presence is not required for deciding the revision application filed by respondent nos. 2 to 4. On the basis of the application given by the petitioner, proceedings were already initiated by the Mamlatdar and ALT and orders against respondent no. 7 came to be passed by Mamlatdar and ALT as well as Deputy Collector. Now the respondent nos. 2 to 4 have purchased the land in question from the respondent no. 7. 8. Respondent no. 7 has specifically averred in the memo of the revision application that on the basis of the application given by the present petitioner to the Vigilance Commissioner, proceedings were initiated and in fact he is a third party who has no right, title or interest in the property. 9. Even otherwise, both the revision applications i.e. revision application filed by respondent no. 9. Even otherwise, both the revision applications i.e. revision application filed by respondent no. 7 as well as revision application filed by respondent nos. 2 to 4 are required to be heard together as per the order passed by this Court and in both the revision applications, the concerned applicants have challenged the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT as well as the Deputy Collector and the petitioner will be given audience and therefore also the application given by the petitioner before the Tribunal is rightly rejected. This Court has also gone through the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal and this Court is of the view that no interference is required in the said order. Therefore, this petition is required to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.