Gujarat High CourtDeceased Ratanlal Maganlal Doodhwala & ... vs Mamlatdar And Alt & 5 on 30 March, 2016Author:Abhilasha KumariBench:Abhilasha KumariC/SCA/12002/2001                                           JUDGMENT




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12002 of 2001



         FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:



         HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
         ==========================================================
         1   Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed       No
             to see the judgment ?

         2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                                             No

         3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of                                No
               the judgment ?

         4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of                                No
               law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
               India or any order made thereunder ?

         ==========================================================
                DECEASED RATANLAL MAGANLAL DOODHWALA & 3....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
                         MAMLATDAR AND ALT & 5....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR CHIRAG B PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR MR BS PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioners
         MRS RANJAN B PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioners
         MR UDIT MEHTA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondents Nos. 1 - 2
         MR ASIM J PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondents Nos. 3.1 - 3.5 , 4 - 5
         MR BIPIN I MEHTA, ADVOCATE for Respondent No. 6
         ==========================================================

             CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI

                                      Date : 30/03/2016


                                      ORAL JUDGMENT1.   This petition underArticles 226and227of thePage 1 of 19HC-NIC                                  Page 1 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
               C/SCA/12002/2001                                                JUDGMENT



              Constitution   of   India   has   been   preferred, 

              praying   for   the   issuance   of   a   Writ   of 

              Certiorari, quashing and setting aside the order 

              dated   19.06.1990,   passed   by   the   Mamlatdar   and 

              ALT   (respondent   No.1   herein)   in   Tenancy   Case 

              No.7084/1989, the order dated 28.06.1993, passed 

              by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) Appeal, 

              Vadodara   (respondent   No.2   herein)   in   Appeal 

              No.TEN/D/REVI/76­A/24/92   and   the   order   dated 

              07.03.2001,   passed   by   the   Gujarat   Revenue 

              Tribunal,              in              Revision                  Application 

              No.TEN/BA/907/1993.2.   The   brief   factual   background   in   which   the 

              petition has been filed is that, the petitioners 

              claim to be the owners of lands bearing Revenue 

              Survey   Nos.887,   901,   574/1,   874/2,   admeasuring 

              Hectare­Are­Sq.mtr.   0­9­11,   0­25­29,   0­15­18, 

              and 0­12­14, situated in village Bapod, Taluka 

              Vadodara   (the   land   in   question).   Respondents 

              No.3   (since   deceased,   now   represented   by   his 

              heirs,   respondents   Nos.3/1   to   3/5)   as   well   as 

              respondents   Nos.4   and   5,   filed   an   application 

              under   Section   70­B   of   the   Gujarat   Tenancy   andPage 2 of 19HC-NIC                                Page 2 of 19       Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
               C/SCA/12002/2001                                         JUDGMENT



              Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("theTenancy Act"for   short)   before   the   first   respondent   to   be 

              declared   as   tenants   of   the   land   in   question. 

              Respondent   No.1   passed   an   order   dated 

              19.06.1990, declaring respondents Nos.3 to 5 as 

              tenants   upon   the   said   land.   Aggrieved   by   the 

              order   of   the   Mamlatdar,   the   petitioners 

              preferred   an   appeal   before   the   second 

              respondent, who, by an order dated 28.06.1993, 

              confirmed   the   order   passed   by   the   first 

              respondent,   and   rejected   the   appeal.   The 

              petitioners   preferred   a   revision   application 

              before   the   Gujarat   Revenue   Tribunal   ("the 

              Tribunal" for short) against the order passed by 

              respondent No.2. The said application has been 

              rejected by an order dated 07.03.2001. Aggrieved 

              by   the   above­mentioned   orders,   the   petitioners 

              have approached this Court.3.   It transpires from the record that, initially, 

              this very petition had been allowed by an order 

              dated 06.10.2003, passed by this Court (Coram:Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.A.Puj), on the basis of the 

              Consent Terms jointly filed by the petitionersPage 3 of 19HC-NIC                           Page 3 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
               C/SCA/12002/2001                                          JUDGMENT



              and   respondents   Nos.3   to   5.   Thereafter, 

              respondents   Nos.3   to   5   filed   an   application, 

              being Miscellaneous Civil Application No.3326 of 

              2006,   for   the   recall   of   the   order   dated 

              06.10.2003, on the ground that the Consent Terms 

              had   been   obtained   fraudulently   by   the 

              petitioners,   who   had   not   acted   in   accordance 

              with the settlement. This Court, passed an order 

              dated   24.08.2007,   in   the   Miscellaneous   Civil 

              Application,   recalling   the   order   dated 

              06.10.2003 passed in the petition, and restored 

              the petition. The petition has thus been revived 

              and is at the stage of final hearing.4.   During   the   pendency   of   the   petition,   an 

              application for joining as party respondent was 

              filed by respondent No.6 herein, which has been 

              allowed. The case of respondent No.6 is to the 

              effect that the petitioners have sold a part of 

              the   land   in   question   to   him,   by   a   registered 

              Sale Deed dated 16.09.2004. Respondent Nos.3 to 

              5 have been declared as tenants over this parcel 

              of land by way of the impugned orders. According 

              to respondent No.6 he, being a purchaser of thePage 4 of 19HC-NIC                            Page 4 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
               C/SCA/12002/2001                                         JUDGMENT



              land, has an interest over it, which ought to be 

              protected.5.   In the above factual background, learned counsel 

              for   the   respective   parties   have   made   detailed 

              submissions before this Court.6.   Mr.Chirag   B.   Patel,   learned   advocate   appearing 

              for Mr.B.S.Patel, on behalf of the petitioners, 

              has   submitted   that   respondent   No.1   has   passed 

              the impugned order without considering the fact 

              that the land in question is within the limits 

              of   Vadodara   Municipal   Corporation,   therefore, 

              the   provisions   of   theTenancy   Actare   not 

              applicable.   That   respondent   No.2,   as   also   the 

              Tribunal,   have   not   considered   this   aspect   in 

              proper   perspective,   and   have   ignored   the 

              provisions   ofSection   121of   the   Gujarat   Town 

              Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ("theTown Planning Act"), which clearly provides that 

              wherever   the   Town   Planning   Scheme   is   made 

              applicable,   the   provisions   of   theTenancy   Actwould not come into play. On the above grounds, 

              it is submitted that the impugned orders sufferPage 5 of 19HC-NIC                           Page 5 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
               C/SCA/12002/2001                                         JUDGMENT



              from a basic flaw and are unsustainable in law.7.   Mr.Udit   Mehta,   learned   Assistant   Government 

              Pleader appearing for respondents Nos.1 and 2, 

              has   supported   the   impugned   orders   passed   by 

              respondents   Nos.1   and   2,   by   submitting     that 

              there   are   concurrent   findings   of   two   revenue 

              authorities   and   the   Tribunal   against   the 

              petitioners. The impugned orders suffer from no 

              legal infirmity or irregularity, therefore, the 

              petition may be rejected.8.   Mr.Asim   J.Pandya,   learned   counsel   for 

              respondents   Nos.3   to   5,   has   strongly   opposed 

              the   submissions   advanced   on   behalf   of   the 

              petitioners by submitting that the order of the 

              first respondent is a detailed and reasoned one, 

              having   been   passed   after   examining   the   entire 

              oral and documentary evidence on record.9.   Regarding   the   applicability   ofSection   121of 

              the   Town   Planning   Act,   it   is   submitted   by 

              Mr.Pandya   that   the   said   provision   has   been 

              deleted  byGujarat  ActNo.4  of  1986.  Upon its 

              deletion,   the   provisions   of   theTenancy   ActPage 6 of 19HC-NIC                           Page 6 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
             C/SCA/12002/2001                                          JUDGMENT



            would be applicable to a Town Planning Scheme. 

            This aspect has been dealt with by the revenue 

            authorities and the Tribunal in their respective 

            orders in detail.10. It   is   further   submitted   that   there   are 

            concurrent findings of three revenue authorities 

            in favour of respondents Nos.3 to 5, declaring 

            them as tenants on the land in question, which 

            may not be interfered with, in exercise of power 

            underArticle 226of the Constitution of India. 

            That, a  Writ  of  Certiorari,  as  prayed  for,  is 

            not warranted on the facts and circumstances of 

            the case. It is submitted that a perusal of the 

            impugned   orders   would   show   that   none   of   the 

            revenue   authorities,   or   the   Tribunal,   have 

            exceeded   the   jurisdiction   vested   in   them,   or 

            violated the principles of natural justice. The 

            impugned   orders   are   not   perverse   and   no   such 

            averment has been made in the petition. Neither 

            is   there   an   obvious   error   on   the   face   of   the 

            orders   to   warrant   the   issuance   of   a   writ   of 

            certiorari.Page 7 of 19HC-NIC                          Page 7 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
             C/SCA/12002/2001                                         JUDGMENT11. It is contended that unless and until a strong 

            case is made out on the above grounds, which is 

            not the case in the present petition, the said 

            orders may not be disturbed. As no grounds have 

            been  made  out  to  sustain  the  challenge to the 

            impugned orders, the petition may be rejected.12. Mr.Bipin   I.   Mehta,   learned   counsel   for 

            respondent   No.6,   has   vehemently   submitted   that 

            the said respondent is a bona fide purchaser of 

            a part of the land in question, to the extent of 

            land   admeasuring   11000   square   feet   of   revenue 

            Survey No.574/1/Paiki, through a registered Sale 

            Deed   dated   16.09.2004.   The   necessary   revenue 

            entries have been made in the Record of Rights, 

            pursuant   to   the   execution   of   the   Sale   Deed. 

            According   to   him,   respondent   No.6   is   in 

            possession   of   the   land.   It   is   submitted   that 

            before purchasing the land, respondent No.6 had 

            obtained   a   Title   Clearance   Certificated   dated 

            25.06.2007,   from   an   advocate.   At   the   time   of 

            purchase,   the   petitioners   had   title   over   the 

            land in question and respondents Nos.3 to 5 were 

            not tenants, at the relevant point of time.Page 8 of 19HC-NIC                         Page 8 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
              C/SCA/12002/2001                                          JUDGMENT13. It   is   contended   that   respondents   Nos.3   to   5, 

             while   filing   Miscellaneous   Civil   Application 

             No.3326 of 2006, did not array respondent No.6 

             as a party, though the petitioners had already 

             sold the land to the said respondent. Had this 

             fact been brought to the knowledge of the Court, 

             the   order   dated   06.10.2003,   allowing   the 

             petition on the basis of the Consent Terms, may 

             not have been passed.14. It   is   further   contended   by   Mr.Mehta   that,   the 

             Consent   Terms   contain   no   stipulation   regarding 

             the amount paid to respondents Nos.3 to 5. The 

             petitioners,   who   were   the   landlords,   ought   to 

             have pointed out that they have sold the land to 

             respondent No.6, which was not done. Respondent 

             No.6   came   to   know   of   the   pendency   of   the 

             petitioner   at   a   later   stage   and   filed   the 

             application for joining as respondent.15. It is submitted that the interest of respondent 

             No.6,   who   is   a   genuine   purchaser   having   paid 

             full   consideration   to   the   petitioners,   may   be 

             protected. The petitioner ­ landlords had titlePage 9 of 19HC-NIC                           Page 9 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
              C/SCA/12002/2001                                           JUDGMENT



             over   the   land   when   it   was   sold   to   respondent 

             No.6 as the tenants (respondents Nos.3 to 5) had 

             waived their rights by way of the Consent Terms.16. The Court is informed by Mr.Asim Pandya, learned 

             counsel   for   respondents   Nos.3   to   5,   that   the 

             said   respondents   have   instituted   a   Civil   Suit 

             challenging   the   Sale   Deed   executed   by   the 

             petitioners in favour of respondent No.6, which 

             is pending.17. This   Court   has   heard   learned   counsel   for   the 

             respective   parties   at   length,   perused   the 

             averments made in the petition, the contents of 

             the other pleadings and the documents on record.18. With regard to the submission advanced on behalf 

             of   the   petitioners   that   theTown   Planning   Actwould be applicable to the land in question and 

             not theTenancy Act, it is required to be noted 

             that   Section   121,   as   it   then   stood   in   theGujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 

             1976, read as below:"121.    Provisions  of Tenancy  Acts  not to  
                   apply to areas under town planning scheme -Page 10 of 19HC-NIC                           Page 10 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
             C/SCA/12002/2001                                             JUDGMENTThe   provisions   ofBombay   Tenancy   and 
                  Agricultural   Lands   Act,   1948(Bom.LXVII   of 
                  1948),   and   the   Bombay   Tenancy   (Vidarbha 
                  Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958 (Bom. XCIX 
                  of 1958) as in force for time being, shall 
                  not   apply   to   any   area   included   in   a   town 
                  planning scheme under this Act."19. This provision has now been deleted bySection 5of   the   Gujarat   Act   No.4   of   1986.   By   its 

            deletion,   the   bar   to   the   applicability   of   theTenancy   Act,   to   areas   under   the   Town   Planning 

            Scheme,   has   been   removed.   The   result   is,   that 

            theTenancy   Actwould   be   applicable   to   areas 

            included in a Town Planning Scheme. This legal 

            position, flowing from the deletion ofSection 

            121of   the   Town   Planning   Act,   cannot   be 

            disputed.   The   submissions   advanced   by   learned 

            counsel   for   the   petitioners   in   this   regard, 

            therefore,   cannot   be   accepted.   Both   the   first 

            and   the   second   respondents,   have   taken   this 

            aspect into consideration and rendered specific 

            findings   thereupon.   These   findings   have   been 

            confirmed by the Tribunal, in its order. In the 

            view of this Court, no flaw can be found in the 

            legal   position   that   after   the   deletion   ofPage 11 of 19HC-NIC                            Page 11 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
             C/SCA/12002/2001                                          JUDGMENT



            Section   121   in   theTown   Planning   Act,   the 

            provisions   of   theTenancy   Actwould   be 

            applicable   to   areas   under   the   Town   Planning 

            Scheme.   Both   the   revenue   authorities   and   the 

            Tribunal   have   rightly   arrived   at   this 

            conclusion.20. A perusal of the impugned orders passed by the 

            revenue   authorities   and   the   Tribunal,   would 

            indicate,   that   it   has   been   the   case   of 

            respondents   Nos.3   to   5   throughout   the 

            proceedings, that they have been cultivating the 

            land in question, as tenants. The order of the 

            first   respondent   discusses,   in   detail,   the 

            evidence on record, both oral and documentary. 

            On   the   basis   of   the   said   evidence,   respondent 

            No.1   has   arrived   at   the   conclusion   that 

            respondents Nos.3 to 5 have been cultivating the 

            land for the past twenty­five years and are in 

            possession   thereof.   After   discussing   the 

            evidence in detail, respondent No.1 has declared 

            respondents Nos.3 to 5 as tenants over the land 

            in question, under the provisions of Section 70­

            B   of   the   Tenancy   Act.   The   second   respondentPage 12 of 19HC-NIC                         Page 12 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
             C/SCA/12002/2001                                          JUDGMENT



            has, in his order, also discussed the evidence 

            on   record,   while   confirming   the   order   of 

            respondent   No.1.   Both   the   orders   passed   by 

            respondents Nos.1 and 2 have been upheld by the 

            Tribunal,   vide   the   impugned   order   dated 

            07.03.2001. In the said order as well, there is 

            a detailed discussion regarding the evidence on 

            the basis of which respondents Nos.3 to 5 have 

            been   declared   as   tenants.   After   minutely 

            scrutinising   the   orders   passed   by   respondents 

            Nos.1 and 2, the Tribunal has correctly arrived 

            at   the   conclusion,   that   there   is   no 

            justification to interfere with the said orders 

            and   has   proceeded   to   reject   the   revision 

            application preferred by the petitioners.21. In the view of this Court, the findings arrived 

            at by respondents Nos.1 and 2, as confirmed by 

            the Tribunal, are just and proper on the facts 

            and circumstances of the case and the evidence 

            on record. Moreover, they are supported by the 

            legal position that has followed the deletion ofSection   121of   the   Town   Planning   Act.   No 

            interference is, therefore, warranted from thisPage 13 of 19HC-NIC                         Page 13 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
              C/SCA/12002/2001                                           JUDGMENT



             Court.22. There   are   concurrent   findings   of   two   revenue 

             authorities   and   the   Tribunal   against   the 

             petitioners and in favour of respondents Nos.3 

             to 5. The impugned orders suffer from no legal 

             infirmity,   irregularity   or   perversity.   None   of 

             the   authorities   passing   these   orders   have 

             exceeded their jurisdiction in any manner. Full 

             opportunity of hearing has been granted to the 

             petitioners.   This   Court,   therefore,   does   not 

             consider   the   challenge   advanced   by   the 

             petitioners   to   the   impugned   orders,   to   be   a 

             fruitful one.23. Learned counsel for respondent No.6, who is the 

             purchaser of the land from the petitioners, has 

             vehemently   submitted   that   the   interest   of   the 

             said   respondent   should   be   protected   as, 

             according  to  him, the  land was  purchased  at  a 

             point   of   time   when   the   petitioners   had   title 

             over   the   land   and   respondents   Nos.3   to   5   had 

             relinquished their status as tenants by entering 

             into   the   Consent   Terms   with   the   petitionersPage 14 of 19HC-NIC                           Page 14 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
          C/SCA/12002/2001                                          JUDGMENT



         before this Court. This resulted in the quashing 

         and   setting   aside   of   the   orders   that   are 

         challenged   in   the   present   petition.   Learned 

         counsel   for   respondent   No.6,   has   mainly   based 

         his   submissions   on   the   aspect   that   he   is   a 

         genuine   purchaser   who   has   paid   full 

         consideration and purchased a part of the land, 

         namely Revenue Survey No.574/1/Paiki, through a 

         registered Sale Deed dated 16.09.2004. Pursuant 

         thereto, revenue entries have been made in the 

         Record   of   Rights.   As   mentioned   earlier,   the 

         petition   was   disposed   of,   by   order   dated 

         06.10.2003,   on   the   basis   of   the   Consent   Terms 

         arrived   at   between   the   parties.   Respondents 

         Nos.3   to   5   herein,   thereafter   filed 

         Miscellaneous Civil Application No.3326 of 2006 

         for the review and recall of the said order,  on 

         the ground that the Consent Terms were obtained 

         fraudulently and the petitioners have not acted 

         in   accordance   with   them.   This   Court,   vide   the 

         order   dated   24.08.2007,   set   aside   the   order 

         dated 06.10.2003, restored the petition to its 

         original status on file. Respondent No.6 did notPage 15 of 19HC-NIC                      Page 15 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
             C/SCA/12002/2001                                          JUDGMENT



            challenge the order dated 24.08.2007, recalling 

            the order dated 06.10.2003.24. A purchaser of land has to be vigilant and aware 

            of the  entire  history  attached  to  the  land  he 

            intends   to   purchase.   It   is   not   possible   to 

            believe that respondent No.6 did not know of the 

            tenancy of respondents Nos.3 to 5 over the land 

            which he purchased, or of the orders passed by 

            the   revenue   authorities   and   the   Tribunal   in 

            favour of respondents Nos.3 to 5. The pendency 

            of   the   writ   petition   would   also   be   in   the 

            knowledge   of   respondent   No.6.   After   having 

            challenged   the   orders   declaring   respondents 

            Nos.3 to 5 as tenants and after fighting a long, 

            legal   battle   for   years,   the   petitioners­

            landlords   entered   into   Consent   Terms   with 

            respondents   Nos.3   to   5   tenants.   This   Court 

            passed   an   order   quashing   the   orders   of   the 

            revenue   authorities   and   the   Tribunal   on 

            06.10.2003   and,   almost   immediately   thereafter, 

            the   petitioners   executed   a   Sale   Deed   dated 

            16.09.2004   in   favour   of   respondent   No.6.   This 

            would   go   to   show   that   the   petitioners   havePage 16 of 19HC-NIC                         Page 16 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
              C/SCA/12002/2001                                           JUDGMENT



             derived advantage from the land which they would 

             never have been able to, had the orders of the 

             Revenue   Authorities   and   the   Tribunal   stood   as 

             they   were.   The   said   orders   were   set   aside   by 

             this Court on the basis of the Consent Terms and 

             not on merits. The orders were restored when the 

             petition   was   restored   to   file,   by   passing   a 

             reasoned   order,   as   the   Court   was   of   the   view 

             that   the   Consent   Terms   were   obtained 

             fraudulently.25. The   main   grievance   of   learned   counsel   for 

             respondent   No.6   can   be   said   to   be   directed 

             against the petitioners,  who have sold the land 

             to   him,   through   their   Power   of   Attorney,   when 

             respondents Nos.3 to 6 had been declared tenants 

             over the said land. The aspect that the petition 

             was   disposed   of   on   the   basis   of   the   Consent 

             Terms and the impugned orders stood quashed when 

             the   Sale   Deed   was   executed,   would   have   no 

             significance   now,   when   the   order   disposing   of 

             the petition on the basis of the Consent Terms, 

             has   been   recalled   and   the   challenge   to   the 

             impugned orders has been revived. It was open toPage 17 of 19HC-NIC                           Page 17 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
             C/SCA/12002/2001                                          JUDGMENT



            respondent   No.6   to   have   challenged   the   order 

            dated 24.08.2007 at the relevant point of time 

            but he did not do so.26. If respondent No.6 has any grievance against the 

            petitioners, he can take recourse to appropriate 

            proceedings   before   the   appropriate   forum.   The 

            transaction   between   the   petitioners   and 

            respondent   No.6   does   not   affect   the   impugned 

            orders,   which   do   not   suffer   from   any   legal 

            infirmity.   The   said   orders,   based   on   the 

            provisions   of   theTenancy   Act,   cannot   be   set 

            aside merely on the basis of the grievance which 

            respondent   No.6   may   have   against   the 

            petitioners.   The   so­called   `interest'   of 

            respondent No.6 cannot be a ground to oust the 

            legally   declared   tenants   from   the   land   in 

            question, which is the attempt made by both the 

            petitioners   and   respondent   No.6.   There   may   be 

            more to the matter than meets the eye.27. Having   considered   the   above   aspects,   in 

            conclusion, this Court is of the considered view 

            that the challenge raised by the petitioners toPage 18 of 19HC-NIC                         Page 18 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016
                     C/SCA/12002/2001                                          JUDGMENT



                    the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos.1 

                    and   2,   as   well   as   the   Tribunal,     cannot   be 

                    sustained.28. The petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to 

                    be rejected. It is, accordingly, rejected. Rule 

                    is discharged. There shall be no orders  as  to 

                    costs.(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.)
         sunilPage 19 of 19HC-NIC                                 Page 19 of 19     Created On Thu Mar 31 01:20:12 IST 2016