Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 3 docs
The Central Agricultural University Act, 1992
Article 227 in The Constitution Of India 1949
State Of Gujarat vs Patel Raghav Natha & Ors on 21 April, 1969

User Queries
Gujarat High Court
Special Civil Application No. ... vs Patel Raghav Natha And Ors. - Air ... on 31 March, 2011
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD



     SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2431 of 1993



     For Approval and Signature:



     HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH


     =========================================================

1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals?

--------------------------------------------------------- VINUBHAI BHAILALBHAI AMIN Versus BALKISHAN SUNDERLAL PATEL

---------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:

1. Special Civil Application No. 2431 of 1993 MR DC DAVE for Petitioner.

NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 1-4

----------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date of decision: 01/02/2005 ORAL JUDGEMENT In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, original-landowner (Seller), has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 26.6.1992 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.BA.606 of 1988 in allowing the said revision application by restoring the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara, dated 16th February 1987 in Tenancy Case No. 5729 of 1986 and quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Collector, Vadodara, dated 25.3.1986 in Tenancy Appeal No. 12 of 1987.

2.The petitioner was the owner of land bearing Survey No. 369/2, admeasuring 2 acres and 21 gunthas of land situated at Village Varnama, Taluka Vadodara and the same came to be sold in favour of the respondents by registered Sale Deed on 23rd January 1981 and necessary Entry in favour of the respondents came to be mutated in the Record of Rights, vide Entry No. 4020 on 7th March 1981. As the Mamlatdar & ALT, Vadodara was of the opinion that the said transaction was hit by the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 {"the Tenancy Act" for short}, he initiated proceedings under Section 84-C of the Act by issuing notice on 26.5.1984, i.e., after a period of 3 years and 2 months. The Mamlatdar & ALT passed an order in Ganot Case No. 5331 of 1984 declaring the transaction in breach of the provisions of the Tenancy Act and directed to restore the position of the land which was prevailing prior to the execution of the sale deed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara, in Ganot Case No. 5331 of 1984 the respondents preferred Appeal before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Vadodara, and the said Appeal came to be allowed and the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar & ALT, Vadodara for deciding the same afresh. Thereafter, on remand, the Mamlatdar & ALT, Vadodara, passed an order withdrawing the notice under Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act by order dated 16th February 1987 by holding that the said transaction between the petitioner and the respondents is not hit by the provisions of the Tenancy Act.

2.1.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara, dated 16th February 1987, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Assistant Collector, Vadodara, being Tenancy Appeal No. 12/1987. The Assistant Collector, Vadodara, by his judgment and order dated 23rd May 1988, partly allowed the said appeal, set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 16th February 1987, and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar & ALT for deciding the same afresh considering the observations made in the order. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Vadodara, dated 23rd May 1988, in Tenancy Appeal No. 12/1987, the respondents-herein, the purchasers preferred a revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which was numbered as 'Revision Application No. TEN.BA. 606/1988. Accepting the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that exercise of powers by the Mamlatdar and ALT in suo motu exercise of powers under Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act is after an unreasonable period, i.e. 3 years and 2 months, the Tribunal allowed the said Revision Application by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Collector, Vadodara, dated 23rd May 1988 in Tenancy Appeal No. 12/1987 and restoring the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara, dated 16th February 1987 in Tenancy Case No. 5729 of 1986. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 26.6.1992 in Revision Application No. TEN.BA.606/1988, the petitioner, original-owner, the seller, has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3.Shri DC Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Vadodara, allowing the appeal and quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Vadodara, on the ground that suo motu exercise of power by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara, under Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act was beyond unreasonable period and the Mamlatdar and ALT as such could not have initiated the proceedings under Section 84-C after a period of 3 years and 2 months inasmuch as the said contention was not raised by the respondents-herein before the Mamlatdar and ALT and/or before the Assistant Collector. It is also submitted that as such the transaction between the petitioner and the respondents itself was contrary to the provisions of the Tenancy Act and when the Assistant Collector has passed an order only remanding the matter the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at that stage could not have interfered with the said order and ought not to have set aside the order of remand.

4.Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondents. Heard Shri Dhaval Dave, learned advocate and perused the orders. It is an admitted position that the petitioner sold the land to the respondents by registered sale deed dated 23rd January 1981. It is also an admitted position that the said land was sold by the petitioner to the respondents for a consideration. It is also an admitted position that for the first time a notice came to be issued by the Mamlatdar and ALT for initiating proceedings under Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act after a period of 3 years and 2 months. Considering the aforesaid facts in particular considering the fact that exercise of power by the Mamlatdar and ALT itself was after an unreasonable period, i.e., 3 years and and 2 months, and considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha And Ors. - AIR 1969 SC 1297 = 10 GLR Page 992, when it is held by the Tribunal that exercise of powers by the Mamlatdar and ALT, being an exercise of suo motu powers under Section 84-C of the Act, is after an unreasonable period and if the same is set aside, it cannot be said that there is any illegality committed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. As such so far as the petitioner is concerned, the present petition, at the instance of the petitioner itself, cannot be said to be maintainable, in view of the fact that the petitioner himself is a party to the transaction and has pocketed the money by selling the land to the respondents. The observations made by this Court in the case of Sarvagna Navinchandra Godiawala Vs. State of Gujarat and Others 2003(1) GLH 426, more particularly the observations in para 19 thereof, the petitioner cannot be said to have locus and/or even if he has locus he cannot challenge the legality of a transaction in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no jurisdictional error much less an error of law committed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal which requires interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5.For the reasons stated hereinabove, there being no substance in the petition, the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

[ M.R. Shah, J. ] rmr.