Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 916 (GUJ)

Rashmiben v. State of Gujarat

2019-10-15

A.J.SHASTRI, VIKRAM NATH

body2019
ORDER : VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. Present Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the appellant-original petitioner feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the main writ petition on 30.8.2018, whereby the petition has not been entertained at the behest of the present appellant. 2. The case of the appellant-original petitioner is that the land bearing Survey No. 222 admeasuring 8 Acres of situated at village Aniyara, Taluka & District-Rajkot, which was originally occupied by Manibhai Ramjibhai Sejpal being the owner and occupier and the appellant herein is the daughter of the owner. 2.1. The Deputy Collector said to have initiated the proceedings for breach of conditions on the ground that though one Ratilal Ranchhodbhai (ancestor of respondent No. 5) was not an agriculturist, he purchased the land in question through registered sale deed on 7.4.1997 from the father of the appellant and for such, a show cause notice was issued on 28.12.2007. The case of the appellant is that no notice was issued and the respondent No. 4-Deputy Collector passed a final order on 4.9.2008, by virtue of which the Deputy Collector ordered vesting of land in the State Government. Said order was carried further by the original vendee and his legal heirs by preferring Revision Application, without making present appellant as party and the Collector on 22.3.2016 was pleased to dismiss the Revision Application without entering into the merits since the original applicant of the said Revision Application did not remain present. The respondent No. 5 accordingly preferred a further Revision Application before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department and having come to know about filing of such proceeding by the respondent, the present appellant preferred an application for joining party on 27.11.2017 in the said proceeding and also submitted the written submissions on 11.12.2017. It was pointed out and the stand taken by the appellant that she was not aware about the alleged sale deed dated 8.4.1997 and also contended that the provision of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949, precisely Section 75 does not provide any power of vesting of land in the State Government and as such, the land if found to be in violation to be returned back to the appellant. However, after hearing the parties, the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, on 31.1.2018, was pleased to confirm the order passed by the Deputy Collector which led the appellant to file a Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge being Special Civil Application No. 9458 of 2018. 2.2. The learned Single Judge, after hearing at length, was pleased to dismiss the petition. As a result of this, the appellant has submitted the present Letters Patent Appeal before us. 3. Shri H.J. Karathiya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that two main issues were required to be considered by the learned Single Judge that the authorities are having the only power of eviction and not the power of forfeiture and further, by drawing attention to Sections 54 and 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949, it has been contended that even if the transaction is barred by virtue of any of the provision, at the best the transaction could have been cancelled and not the forfeiture of the land could be ordered. Resultantly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be corrected. It has further been submitted by learned counsel that the reasons which are assigned by the learned Single Judge are not sufficient enough to substantiate the ultimate conclusion. On the contrary, the appellant is vitally concerned with the land in question, can legitimately challenge the orders and as such, a request is made to allow the present Letters Patent Appeal by setting aside the impugned order. 4. As against this, Shri Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State, has vehemently contended that there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge in passing a well reasoned order and in fact, it has rightly been observed by the learned Single Judge that at the instance of appellant, the proceedings are not entertainable. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that a well reasoned order is passed by the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the order of dismissal of Writ Petition is justified and hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal be dismissed. 4.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that a well reasoned order is passed by the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the order of dismissal of Writ Petition is justified and hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal be dismissed. 4.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that since the appellant is not having any locus and as such, at her instance the present Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained and further, the appellant has joined the litigation at the revisional stage before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department and hence, the challenge at the instance of appellant, is a questionable attempt. That being so, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, prima facie look at the order is clearly suggesting that the order is passed after considering the very submissions which were made before us and as such, when the view taken by the learned Single Judge is backed by the cogent reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal. 6. Additionally, we are also of the opinion that here is a case in which the appellant is the daughter of Manilal Ramjibhai Sejpal, who died long back and in the proceedings which have been initiated by the authority, there is no remote right left in favour of the appellant, particularly when the father has undisputedly disposed of the property in question through registered sale transaction. So, at the instance of the appellant, certainly the proceedings are not maintainable as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, we see no infirmity in such conclusion. Even otherwise, the observations which have been made in Para. 6 and 7 are sufficient enough to indicate that the order in question is passed after considering stand of appellant and after considering the status of the appellant. 7. Even otherwise, the observations which have been made in Para. 6 and 7 are sufficient enough to indicate that the order in question is passed after considering stand of appellant and after considering the status of the appellant. 7. Additionally, we are also of the opinion that once having sold the land through registered sale transaction, having pocketed the money by the father of the appellant, even the father could not have agitated the issue, there is hardly any question to entertain the proceedings at the instance of a daughter, who does not have any legal right and this issue that the proceedings are not entertainable at the instance of the seller, who extinguished his right, such proposition of law is vogue, we need not repeat the same in the present order. Accordingly, we see no error committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the order. Accordingly, present Letters Patent appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 8. Consequently, Civil Application No. 1 of 2018 also stand disposed of.