Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 408 (GUJ)

Narayanlal Dayalal Raval v. State Of Gujarat

2024-02-29

NIRZAR S.DESAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1.By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/103 of 2008 whereby the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal confirmed the order dated 29.02.2008 of the Deputy Collector who confirmed the order dated 21.04.1986 passed in Ganot Case No. 631 of 1985. Vide order dated 21.04.1986, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar decided the Tenancy Case No. 631 of 1985 against the present petitioner in respect of an application under section 32 P and held that the land in question was sold in contravention of provision of section 63 of the Tenancy Act and therefore, the sale was declared to be invalid and was directed to be vested into Government, if the original position is not restored within a period of 90 days and upon expiry of period of 90 days, the Government was directed to take possession of the land and initiate the proceedings under section 84 (C) (4) of the Tenancy Act. The aforesaid order was challenged after a period of 20 years by preferring an appeal against the order dated 21.04.1986 being Tenancy Appeal No. 35 of 2006 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gandhinagar and on the ground of 20 years unexplained delay, the aforesaid appeal was rejected vide order dated 29.02.2008. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 29.02.2008 by preferring Revision Application No. TEN/BA/103/2008 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and even the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal also by way of impugned order dated 29.03.2011 rejected the revision application and that is how the petitioner has preferred this petition against the concurrent findings. 2.Heard learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondent – State. 3. In this petition, notice was issued on 31.01.2012 and thereafter, on 16.09.2013 rule was issued and status quo qua the subject land was directed to be maintained by the parties. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a strong prima facie case as the petitioner was an agriculturist and the Mamlatdar and all the revenue authorities have not appreciated the aforesaid fact and have proceeded on the footing that an adoption deed was executed in the year 1985, when the petitioner’s age was 45 years. Learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas submitted that even if the adoption deed is discarded then also, the petitioner’s name was there in the revenue record and therefore, transaction of the land purchased by the petitioner could not have been said to be in breach of provision of section 63 of the Tenancy Act and therefore, the petitioner has a very good case on merits. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas submitted that the petitioner is enjoying the possession of the land in question even till today as after the order dated 21.04.1986 was passed and the petitioner’s transaction of the subject land was held to be invalid, the petitioner continued to cultivate the land and thereafter, as this Court while issuing rule on 16.09.2013 directed the parties to maintain status quo to the subject land, the petitioner is having possession of the land in question even today. 4.2.Learned advocate Mr. Vyas submitted that all the authorities have committed an error by not appreciating the aforesaid merits of the matter and have proceeded on the ground of delay that the petitioner for the first time challenged the order dated 21.04.1986 by way of Tenancy Appeal No. 35 of 2006 i.e. after a period of 20 years before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gandhinagar and as the petitioner being an illiterate person was unaware about the outcome of 32 P proceedings, such delay had occurred but the authorities have proceeded on the ground of delay and rejected the petitioner’s appeal as well as revision application and therefore, this Court’s intervention is required as the petitioner has a strong prima facie case. 4.3.Learned advocate Mr. Vyas submitted that if the aspect of delay is discarded, in that case, considering the fact that the petitioner is an agriculturist then in that case, the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhianagar holding that the transaction of land in question was in breach of section 63 of Tenancy Act is an incorrect finding and therefore, the aforesaid order is erroneous and therefore, the delay occurred on the part of the petitioner is required to be considered in light of the merits of the case and therefore, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside and the delay is required to be condoned and the matter may be remanded back to the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar for fresh consideration. 4.4.Learned advocate Mr. 4.4.Learned advocate Mr. Vyas relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu V/s. Gobardhan Sao passed in Civil Appeal No. 1704 of 2002 decided on 27.02.2002. By relying upon paragraph no. 11 of the aforesaid decision, learned advocate Mr. Vyas submitted that sufficient cause in matter of delay is required to be constructed liberal so as to advance substantial justice when there is no negligence, inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to a party. By relying upon the aforesaid decision, learned advocate Mr. Vyas prayed for quashing of the impugned orders which are passed on the ground of 20 years of delay. 5. Learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara appearing for the respondent – State vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that the delay is a major aspect as the proceedings under section 32 P were initiated by the petitioner himself alongwith his mother and in those proceedings the petitioner and his mother had participated. He further submitted that after having participated in the proceedings and lost as the order dated 21.04.1986 was passed against the petitioner, the petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid order immediately and therefore, the said can be termed as inaction on the part of the petitioner or negligence on the part of petitioner and therefore, the judgment relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Vyas would not help the petitioner even as per the said judgment, such liberal construction would not be required in case of negligence or inaction on the part of the party. 5.1. Learned AGP Mr. Kanara further submitted that the petitioner could not explain the long delay of 20 years sufficiently and therefore, all the authorities have rightly rejected the petitioner’s appeal as well as revision application respectively. 5.2. On merits, learned AGP Mr. Kanara pointed out from the record itself that the land was sold even prior to the adoption deed was executed in the year 1982 as the land was sold in the year 1977 and the age of petitioner at the time when the adoption deed was executed was 45 years as observed by the Mamlatdar. On merits, learned AGP Mr. Kanara pointed out from the record itself that the land was sold even prior to the adoption deed was executed in the year 1982 as the land was sold in the year 1977 and the age of petitioner at the time when the adoption deed was executed was 45 years as observed by the Mamlatdar. He submitted that the aforesaid adoption deed was executed only to ensure that the petitioner acquired the status as an agriculturist and therefore, the transaction was rightly held to be in contravention of provision of section 63 of the Act as at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was not an agriculturist. 5.3. Learned AGP Mr. Kanara further submitted that if the petitioner was an agriculturist even prior to 1982, in that case, at the age of the 45 years, the petitioner’s adoption deed was not required at all but the adoption deed was executed just to ensure that the petitioner acquired the status as an agriculturist and to see that transaction of such nature may not be held to be invalid on the ground that the petitioner is not an agriculturist. He therefore, submitted that with that specific purpose in mind as the petitioner was adopted by the deceased Manguben and therefore, the Mamlatdar has rightly observed that adoption of the petitioner at the age of 45 years is suspicious and therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and considering the replies and statements given by witnesses after considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhiangar passed an order dated 21.04.1986 holding the sale to be invalid as the same was in breach of section 63 of the Tenancy Act. Learned AGP Mr. Kanara further submitted that after having participated in the aforesaid proceedings, it is impossible to believe that the petitioner was an illiterate person and was unaware about the outcome of those proceedings and therefore, both the authorities namely the Deputy Collector and Gujarat Revenue Tribunal have rightly rejected the petitioner’s appeal and revision application by considering the unexplained long delay of 20 years. He therefore, prays for dismissal of this petition. 5.4. Learned AGP Mr. Kanara relied upon a decision of this Court in case of Gonvabhai Momanbhai Bharwad V/s. State of Gujarat And Ors. He therefore, prays for dismissal of this petition. 5.4. Learned AGP Mr. Kanara relied upon a decision of this Court in case of Gonvabhai Momanbhai Bharwad V/s. State of Gujarat And Ors. passed in Special Civil Application No. 9193 of 2013 decided on 24.02.2015 and by relying upon the judgment and more particularly, he submitted that in that case also, the petitioner agitated his grievance after waiting for 21 years and the delay was unexplained and therefore, such lapse of 21 years was not condoned by this Court by holding that the judgment in case of State of Gujarat V/s. Raghav Natha reported in 1969 GLR 992 would apply not just to the State Government but to the petitioner as well as no explanation of 21 years delay is given by the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of record, I found that as rightly pointed out by learned AGP Mr. Kanara, the petitioner was adopted at the age of 45 years in the year 1982 by deceased Manguben as the petitioner’s father had expired when the petitioner was a child. I have also considered the fact that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has in its order specifically noted that the petitioner purchased the land in question on 16.04.1977 alongwith Manguben whereas the adoption deed was executed in the year 1982 and therefore, in the year 1977, there was no adoption deed. Further the Mamlatdar has recorded in its order that upon death of father of the petitioner, the petitioner has not received any share from his land and therefore, when the petitioner has not received any share from his father’s land, the submission of learned advocate Mr. Vyas that the petitioner was already an agriculturist as his name was reflected in the 7/12 abstracts cannot be accepted. Vyas that the petitioner was already an agriculturist as his name was reflected in the 7/12 abstracts cannot be accepted. 7.Over and above, on perusal of record, I found that the petitioner has participated in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar in Tenancy Case No. 631 of 1985 which are proceedings under section 32 P of the Tenancy Act, after having participated in the proceedings and lost the proceedings vide order dated 21.04.1986 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, the petitioner has waited for a period of 20 years and it is only in the year 2006 that he preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 35 of 2006 before the Deputy Collector, Gandhinagar. Though the memo of the application for condonation of delay is not a part of the record of this petition but the same was made available during the course of arguments by Mr. Vyas and on perusal of the same, I found that no cogent reason of such 20 years long delay was explained even in the memo of application. However, since, the aforesaid photocopy was not on record, the same has been given back to learned advocate Mr. Vyas after perusing the same. 8.Further on perusal of impugned orders, I do not see that any of the authorities have committed any error either on merits or while assessing the application for delay and therefore, in view of the fact that there is a long delay of 20 years which have remained unexplained and no convincing reasons for such long delay is assigned, the revenue authorities as well as Gujarat Revenue Tribunal are absolutely justified in not entertaining the appeal and application of the petitioner after delay of 20 years. 9.Further even the order passed by the Mamlatdar, at the relevant point of time also, is a well reasoned order and the Mamlatdar also has assigned every reasons for holding the transaction to be in violation of section 63 of the Act and therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the orders impugned even by considering the merits of the matter. 10. Resultantly, the present petition is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, shall stands vacated. 11.At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Vyas prayed for extension of order of status quo for a period of four weeks. 10. Resultantly, the present petition is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, shall stands vacated. 11.At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Vyas prayed for extension of order of status quo for a period of four weeks. However, considering the fact that the petition is rejected, the request for extension of order of status quo is also rejected.