Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 381 (GUJ)

Jayeshbhai Jashbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2025-04-07

NIKHIL S.KARIEL

body2025
ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jay Thakkar on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.J.K.Shah on behalf of the respondent – State. 1.1. Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar seeks permission to join the Deputy Collector as well as the Mamlatdar as party respondents. Permission is granted. Appropriate amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioners challenge an order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Collector, Anand more particularly whereby the Collector has refused NA permission to the present petitioners. The petitioners have further challenged an order passed by the Collector subsequent to the order granting NA whereby the Collector has inter alia taken the entry in favour of the present petitioners in suo motu revision and whereas, vide the order / notice referred to hereinabove, the Collector has directed status-quo to be maintained over the land in question. 3. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate, it would prima facie appear that the order rejecting NA has been on the ground that the land in question, according to the authorities concerned, had been allotted to the predecessor of the present petitioners subject to restrictions under sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 32(P) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. It is pointed out by learned advocate Mr.Thakkar in this regard that the issue which is sought to be raised by the State Authorities is completely beyond their jurisdiction to have gone into. 3.1. It is pointed out by learned advocate that the predecessor in title of the present petitioners had inter alia initiated revision application being TEN/BA/198/2015 and whereas, in the said proceedings, the GRT vide order dated 01.10.2015 had, while allowing the revision application, set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Collector as well as the Mamlatdar and ALT and had further set aside the order dated 28.01.1968 whereby the land had been allotted to the predecessor of the petitioners subject to restrictions under Section 32(P)(7)(8) of the Tenancy Act and had inter alia further declared that the land is free from all encumbrances under the said Act. 3.2. It would appear that thereafter, the petitioners and their predecessor in title had filed an application for grant of NA permission and whereas, vide an order dated 04.04.2019, the Resident Additional Collector had inter alia rejected the application on the ground of an appeal pending before this Court. 3.2. It would appear that thereafter, the petitioners and their predecessor in title had filed an application for grant of NA permission and whereas, vide an order dated 04.04.2019, the Resident Additional Collector had inter alia rejected the application on the ground of an appeal pending before this Court. It would further appear that the petitioners had challenged the said decision before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.22103/2019 and whereas, vide an order dated 26.12.2019, a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court while quashing and setting aside the order dated 04.04.2019 had inter alia noted that while the learned Coordinate Bench had adjourned the matter to 19.12.2019 vide order dated 13.12.2019 for the purpose of the learned AGP to take instructions, whereas, between the said dates, the State had filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Tribunal of the year 2015. The learned Coordinate Bench was of the opinion that the said writ petition was filed with an attempt to overreach the process of the Court and whereas, the action on the part of the respondent no.2 in the said writ petition i.e. State Authorities had been deprecated. 3.3. Furthermore, vide an order of the very selfsame date i.e. 26.12.2019, the learned Coordinate Bench had rejected the Special Civil Application No.23144/2019 i.e. the petition preferred by the State challenging the order passed by the GRT dated 01.10.2015 referred to hereinabove. In the said decision also, the learned Coordinate Bench had observed that the writ petition was being rejected on the ground of delay and whereas, the learned Coordinate Bench had very clearly observed that the conduct of the petitioners i.e. State Authorities was nothing but an attempt to overreach the process of the Court. 3.4. It would appear that again, the petitioners and their predecessor had filed an application for grant of NA permission and whereas, vide an order dated 26.02.2020, the same had been rejected by the Collector, Anand more particularly on account of the fact that the State had preferred a Letters Patent Appeal. It would appear that the said Letters Patent Appeals being No.435/2020 and 436/2020 had been rejected by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.04.2023. 3.5. It would appear that the said Letters Patent Appeals being No.435/2020 and 436/2020 had been rejected by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.04.2023. 3.5. It would appear that the above Letters Patent Appeals were with regard to the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench dated 26.12.2019 in the writ petition preferred by the petitioners allowing the same and in the writ petition preferred by the State rejecting the same. It would appear that while the Hon’ble Division Bench had thought it appropriate not to entertain the LPA against the order of rejection of the writ petition preferred by the State whereas, insofar as the order allowing the writ petition preferred by the petitioners, the Hon’ble Division Bench had modified the same to the extent that while the learned Coordinate Bench had directed the State Authorities to grant NA permission with respect to the land in question in favour of the petitioners and their predecessor, the Hon’ble Division Bench vide the said decision, modified the order to the extent that the application for NA permission filed by the petitioners herein would be decided in accordance with law. 3.6. It would appear that the said decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench had been challenged by the State by preferring Special Leave Petition No.2130-2131/2024 and whereas, vide an order dated 09.12.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had rejected the SLPs more particularly by observing that “Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed on merits”. Thus, while the issue as regards the land being covered under the restrictions of Section 32(P)(7) (8) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act though had attained finality by virtue of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, yet, it would appear that the revenue authorities are of the opinion that they have the power to sit in appeal over the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, on account of such a stand, the petitioners who have succeeded up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court are again required to approach this Court. 3.7. The reason, as noted hereinabove, being the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Collector, Anand whereby the Collector has rejected the application for grant of NA permission on the ground that the land is allotted to the predecessor of the petitioners subject to the restriction of Section 32(P)(7)(8). 3.7. The reason, as noted hereinabove, being the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Collector, Anand whereby the Collector has rejected the application for grant of NA permission on the ground that the land is allotted to the predecessor of the petitioners subject to the restriction of Section 32(P)(7)(8). It would appear that the Collector has solely relied upon the opinion of the Mamlatdar as well as the Deputy Collector. The opinion of the Mamlatdar which is also annexed with the writ petition, inter alia refers only to verifying the procedure adopted after the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. The opinion of the Deputy Collector is more revealing inasmuch as while the Deputy Collector refers to the history of the case upto the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench, the Deputy Collector goes on to observe that the words used by the Hon’ble Division Bench ‘in accordance with law’ would accord authority to the revenue authorities to take into consideration the order dated 28.01.1968 whereby, according to the authorities, the land had been allotted to the predecessor of the petitioners on restricted basis, the restrictions under Section 32(P)(7)(8) of the Tenancy Act. 4. The facts have been referred to hereinabove in extenso, since while the present petition had been taken up for consideration, the Deputy Collector Mr.S.D.Patel is present before this Court and whereas, the learned AGP would submit that the State i.e. the Revenue Authorities would want to contest the present petition. While it is the discretion of every litigant to take an appropriate call with regard to defending a litigation, yet, to this Court, it would appear that the stand taken by the Revenue Authorities more particularly the opinions of the Mamlatdar, Deputy Collector and the order passed by the Collector, Anand clearly reflects the fact that the authorities want to ensure that the orders of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court are not given effect to appropriately. It would also clearly appear that inspite of the petitioners having succeeded upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the authorities are of the opinion that their opinion is even higher than the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or by the Hon’ble Division Bench or by the learned Coordinate Bench. 5. It would also clearly appear that inspite of the petitioners having succeeded upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the authorities are of the opinion that their opinion is even higher than the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or by the Hon’ble Division Bench or by the learned Coordinate Bench. 5. To this Court, it would appear that the order of the Tribunal dated 01.10.2015 had been confirmed by the learned Coordinate Bench vide order dated 26.12.2019 in Special Civil Application No.23144/2019. The said order had neither been interfered with by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State nor did the Hon’ble Supreme Court interfere with the orders passed by the learned Coordinate Bench or the Hon’ble Division Bench. Thus, insofar as the decision of the Tribunal is concerned, the same has become final between the parties. That being the position, the State or its officers had no business whatsoever to have considered the land as having been allotted to the predecessor of the petitioners on restricted tenure basis. 5.1. Furthermore, the opinion of the Deputy Collector which is also annexed with the petition dated 02.01.2025, also reflects absolute non-application of mind on the part of the Deputy Collector when the Deputy Collector tries to interpret the words ‘in accordance with law’ by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 12.04.2023 in Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the State to mean that the State would be empowered to ignore the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench or the LPA Bench itself. To elaborate, it would appear that the words ‘in accordance with law’ have been used in context of the direction issued by the learned Coordinate Bench in the writ petition preferred by the present petitioners being Special Civil Application No.22103/2019 whereby the learned Coordinate Bench while setting aside the order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the Deputy Collector, Anand rejecting the application for grant of NA permission had directed the concerned authority to grant NA permission to the petitioners in a specific period of time. The Hon’ble Division Bench had modified the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench in the said decision to the extent that the Collector was directed to consider and decide the application for NA permission filed by the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. 5.2. The Hon’ble Division Bench had modified the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench in the said decision to the extent that the Collector was directed to consider and decide the application for NA permission filed by the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. 5.2. To this Court, the direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench, by no stretch of imagination, could be read to mean that the order of the Tribunal which has been confirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court could be ignored by the authorities. To this Court, it does not appear that an officer of the level of the Deputy Collector would not understand such a normal issue. The said fact also reflecting that it is nothing but the attitude of the State Authorities to ensure that the orders of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not require to be complied with, which has resulted in this situation. 5.3. The Collector, Anand also does not appear to have applied his mind to the entire issue inasmuch as to this Court, it would appear that if appropriate application of mind had come from the said authority, it would have clearly been noticed by the authority concerned that the order of the Tribunal dated 01.10.2015 having been confirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State could not have fallen back upon a contention that the land was given to the petitioners on restricted tenure basis, the restrictions under Section 32(P)(7)(8) of the Tenancy Act. Thus, it would appear that either the authorities concerned were negligent or the authorities concerned were acting on malafide basis. Either way, the situation does not augur well for the State. 6. Thus, while this Court would have been inclined to pass appropriate orders, in view of the fact that the Deputy Collector concerned is present in the Court, since learned AGP has sought for some time i.e. till day after tomorrow, list this matter on 09.04.2025 on which date, the concerned Collector, concerned Deputy Collector and the concerned Mamlatdar shall appear before this Court and explain by way of an affidavit as to how the said authorities could refer to the order dated 28.01.1968 i.e. would refer to an aspect which has been confirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. as regards the land of the petitioners not being allotted on restricted tenure basis. The authorities concerned are also required to explain on affidavit as to how relying upon such an issue, the application for grant of NA permission could have been rejected by them. 6.1. If appropriate and justifiable reasons are not found, then this Court would not refrain itself from taking out contempt proceedings against the officers concerned since it clearly appears that the decision dated 10.01.2025 relying upon opinions of the Deputy Collector as well as the Mamlatdar is in clear contempt of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench as well as of the learned Coordinate Bench. 7. List this matter on 09.04.2025. A copy of this order shall be provided to learned AGP during the course of the day for taking appropriate action.