Gujarat High CourtParshottambhai Manilal Patel vs State on 22 August, 2013Author:S.R.BrahmbhattBench:S.R.BrahmbhattPARSHOTTAMBHAI MANILAL PATEL....Petitioner(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	

 
 


	 


	C/SCA/1054/2000
	                                                                    
	                           JUDGMENT

 

 


 
	  
	  
		 
			 

IN
			THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
		
	

 


 


 


SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION  NO. 1054 of 2000
 


 


 

 


 

FOR
APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: 

 

 

 

HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
 

 

 

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

 


 
	  
	 
	 
	  
		 
			 

1
		
		 
			 

Whether
			Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

 

			
		
	
	 
		 
			 

2
		
		 
			 

To
			be referred to the Reporter or not ?
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

 

			
		
	
	 
		 
			 

3
		
		 
			 

Whether
			their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

 

			
		
	
	 
		 
			 

4
		
		 
			 

Whether
			this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
			interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order
			made thereunder ?
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

 

			
		
	
	 
		 
			 

5
		
		 
			 

Whether
			it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

 

			
		
	

 

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


PARSHOTTAMBHAI
MANILAL PATEL....Petitioner
 


Versus
 


STATE
OF GUJARAT  &  3....Respondents
 

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

Appearance:
 

MR
BHARAT T RAO, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner
 

MR.RAKESH
R. PATEL, AGP for the Respondents No. 1 - 2
 

MR
MC BAROT, ADVOCATE for the Respondents No. 3 - 4
 

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

 


 


	 
		  
		 
		  
			 
				 

CORAM:
				
				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
			
		
	

 


 

 


Date
: 22/08/2013
 


 

 


ORAL
JUDGMENT1.		Heard
learned advocates for the parties.  The petitioner by way of this
petition has approached this Court invoking provision ofArticle 226and227of the Constitution of India with following prayers.(A)		Your
Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or mandamus,
certiorari, prohibition, or any other suitable writ, order or
direction which the Hon ble Court may deem fit, just and proper for
quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal in Review Application No.TEN.C.A.9/96 to 14/96 dated
17.11.1999 as well as the order passed by the Tribunal on 15.3.1996
in Tenancy Application No. TEN. B.A. No.528/95 to 533/95 for the
reasons stated hereinabove ;(B)		Your
Lordships be pleased to direct the Mamlatdar & ALT, Kalol,
respondent No.2 herein to initiate proceedings underSection 84of
the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and necessary
orders be passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act ;(C)		Pending
hearing and final disposal of present petition, Your Lordships be
pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the
impugned order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Review
Application No. TEN.C.A.9/96 to 14/96 dated 17.11.1999 as well as the
order passed by the Tribunal on 15.3.1996 in Tenancy Application No.
TEN. B.A. No.528/95 to 533/95 for the reasons stated hereinabove;(D)		Any
other reliefs deemed fit and proper by Your Lordships may please be
granted in the interest of justice.Thus,
what is essentially under challenge is orders passed by Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal in Review Application No. TEN.C.A.9/96
to 14/96 dated 17/11/1999 and the order passed by the Tribunal on
15/03/1996 in Tenancy Application No. TEN. B.A. No.528/95 to 533/95
and with prayer for direction to the concerned Mamlatdar & ALT,
Kalol   respondent no.2 for initiating proceedings underSection 84of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.2.		The
facts in brief leading to filing this petition as could be culled-out
from the memo of the petition deserve to be set out as under.3.		The
petitioner owned a land bearing Block No.1236 at Village Vadsar,
Taluka Kalol, admeasuring 1 Acre 15 Gunthas and 36 Are.  The
petitioner sold the said land to respondent nos.3 and 4 by a
registered sale deed dated 23rd
January, 1991, which bears document no.179.  Pursuant to the
aforesaid sale deed, the names of respondent nos.3 and 4 came to be
mutated in the revenue record by Talati in Village Form No.6 being
Entry No.1588 on 4th
October, 1991.  The said entry has been certified by the Certifying
Officer with an endorsement that the notice under the provision of
Rule 135-D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code has been duly served upon
the respective parties.  The petitioner s say in the memo of the
petition is that the purchasers   respondent nos.3 and 4 being not
agriculturists, they could not have purchased the said land.  The
concerned Mamlatdar, Kalol vide his letter dated 18th
March, 1992 made reference to Deputy Collector, Mehsana indicating
the facts that the entry, which has been made by Entry No.1583 to
1587 and Certifying Officer is not in consonance with the provision
of law, as the purchasers of agricultural land are not agriculturists
and therefore, there was a violation of provision ofSection   73andSection 67of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and
therefore, proceedings underSection 84-Cmay be initiated, which
accordingly were directed.  The Mamlatdar, thereafter, issued a
notice and passed an order in Tenancy Case No.84C/Vad/677/94 dated
06/05/1994 ordering land being vested by the Government by Entry
no.1236.  It was noted that the notice served upon respondent nos.3
and 4, but they did not remain present before the ALT nor did they
furnish the documents that they were agriculturists and after making
detail inquiry with Village Lakhama and Boyana, he came to the
conclusion that the respondent nos.3 and 4 were not agriculturists. 
The appeal was preferred before the Dy. Collector challenging the
said order, who remanded the matter vide order dated 29th
April, 1995 to Mamlatdar & ALT with a direction that after giving
notices to all the concerned, the concerned Mamlatdar & ALT,
Kalol initiated fresh proceedings and issued fresh notice on 31st
July, 1995 and matter was fixed on 10th
August, 1995.  On 17th
October, 1995, the respondent nos.3 and 4 approached the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal against the order by Dy. Collector (Land Reforms)
Mehsana.  The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by
the respondent nos.3 and 4 on 15th
March, 1996 and set aside the order passed by Dy. Collector and also
the order passed by Mamlatdar & ALT dated 06/05/1994.  The
present petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.2300 of
1996 before this Court challenging the order of Tribunal.  The matter
is admitted and on 3rd
April, 2996 an ad interim relief was granted as prayed for.  The
concerned Collector, Mehsana issued suo motu
notice under Rule 108 (6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 for
certifying the Entry No.1583, 1584, 1585, 1586, 1587 and 1588 dated
15th
November, 1991.  The petitioner also received notice, but could not
remain present before the Collector.  The matter was adjourned to
17th
March, 1993 and 24th
 March, 1993 and 6th
April, 1995.  The concerned Collector has set aside the Entry
Nos.1583 to 1588.  The said order was challenged by respondent nos.3
and 4 before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gandhinagar
bearing No.11 of 1995, which came to be decided
by the Dy. Secretary (Appeals) dismissing the same, confirming the
order dated 31st
May, 1994.  The petitioner on this basis preferred the application to
the Revenue Tribunal in the form of Review Application saying that in
view of the order passed by the State, the order passed by the
Revenue Tribunal was not maintainable as the appeal filed by the
respondent nos.3 and 4 was against the provision of law and was not
maintainable.  The said application came to be dismissed by the
Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 17th
November, 1995, which came to be received by the petitioner in the
last week of December 1999.  The petitioner s petition was
permitted to be withdrawn as the petitioner was before the tribunal.4.		Learned
advocate for the petitioner contended that the two certificates in
respect of the respondent nos.3 and 4 being agriculturists are the
real controversy and the tribunal did not appreciate the same and
therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is required to be quashed
and set aside.5.		The
Court has perused the orders impugned in this petition.  The Court is
of the view that the tribunal s reasons cannot be said to be
illegal or unreasonable so as to call for any interference.  The fact
remains to be noted that the present petitioner has no locus
whatsoever to bring in this petition this belatedly, as by way of
this petition filed in the year 2000, what is sought to be challenged
are the order passed on 17th
November, 1999 and 15th
March, 1996.  The sheer delay on the part of the petitioner itself is
sufficient for refusal of exercise of discretion in his favour. 
Moreover, the petitioner cannot be said to be a person in whose
favour, the jurisdiction underArticle 226could be exercised as the
petitioner himself is a one who has sold the land and now after
having pocketed the sale proceedings cannot be permitted to challenge
his own action of selling the land to so-called non-agriculturists. 
The belated challenge to the orders is otherwise also not
maintainable by way of this
petition.  In view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of  State
of Gujarat V/s. Patel Raghav Natha, reported in A.I.R. 1969 Supreme
Court 1297, the belated
action in this kind of matters are not be encouraged in any manner.  
 Hence, the petition is in my view bereft of merits and required to
be rejected and accordingly the same is rejected.  Rule discharged. 
Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.  No costs.(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.) 

 


Rathod...Page6of   6