Allowed

Pravinchandra Valjibhai Thro' Poa Amrutlal B Bhakta v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC30 Jun 2014SCA/10796/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking to quash orders of the Deputy Collector and Dy. Secretary (Appeals) regarding land possession. The court held that section 73A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code did not apply as the matter was already adjudicated by the High Court in prior appeals, and the exercise of jurisdiction was barred by the long lapse of time.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector dated 17.1.1980 and by the Dy. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department dated 11.7.2000 are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.

Pravinchandra Valjibhai Thro' Poa Amrutlal B Bhakta Vs… — Land Acquisition | Gujarat HC (2014)

¶1

C/SCA/10796/2000 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10796 of 2000

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶9

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

¶10

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 ?

¶11

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

¶12

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

¶13

PRAVINCHANDRA VALJIBHAI THRO' POA AMRUTLAL B BHAKTA....Petitioner(s)

¶14

Versus

¶15

STATE OF GUJARAT & 5....Respondent(s)

¶16

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

¶17

Appearance:

¶18

Ms DILBUR CONTRACTOR for MR DEVANG T SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 4 - 5

¶19

MR BHARAT VYAS, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3

¶20

RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 6.1 - 6.5

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA

¶23

Date : 30/06/2014

¶24

Page 1 of 4

¶25

C/SCA/10796/2000 JUDGMENT

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code for the prayers, inter alia, that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Rajpipla, dated 17.1.1980 and also the order passed by the Dy. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, dated 11.7.2000 on the grounds stated in the petition.

¶28

Heard learned advocate Ms. Dilbur Contractor for the petitioner and learned AGP Shri Bharat Vyas for respondents Nos. 1-3.

¶29

Learned advocate Ms. Contractor referred to the papers and submitted that the authorities below have failed to consider the issue regarding sec. 73A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). She referred to the background of facts that the petitioner had filed a suit with regard to the same land restraining the defendants-Government authorities from taking back the possession. The land in question were exchanged between the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 as stated in detail pursuant to the registered sale deed/writing executed on 17.4.1961. She submitted that thereafter the petitioner is in possession and the provisions of sec. 73A of the Code would not be applicable at all. However, when the possession was sought to be taken, the suit was filed being Regular Civil Suit No. 101/80 before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch which came to be decreed by the judgment and order dated 30.4.1981 at Annexure-A. She further submitted that Regular Civil Appeal No. 101/81 was preferred by the respondents-State authorities before the District Court, which came to be dismissed vide the judgment and order dated 31.12.1985 at Annexure-B. She also referred

¶30

Page 2 of 4

¶31

C/SCA/10796/2000 JUDGMENT

¶32

to the Second Appeal No. 236/86 and submitted that even the second appeal came to be dismissed by the High Court clearly observing that sec. 73A of the Code would not be applicable and there is no illegality in the transactions and it was not barred by sec. 73A of the Code. Learned advocate Ms. Contractor referred to sec. 73A as well as the findings in the judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal No. 236/86 in support of her submissions. She therefore submitted that such exercise of power at a belated stage is even otherwise not justified and therefore the present petition may be allowed.

¶33

Learned AGP Shri Bharat Vyas referred to the papers and tried to submit that sec. 73A would be attracted as observed in the order at Annexure-D. He submitted that such exchange of land granted to the scheduled tribe would be prohibited without any permission. He submitted that as the permission as required has not been obtained, such a transaction was contrary and in breach of the provisions of sec. 73A of the Code. He therefore submitted that the impugned orders may not be quashed and set aside in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present petition can be entertained.

¶35

As it transpires from the background of facts and the discussion and the findings by the authorities below in Regular Civil Suit No. 101/80 as well as in the Appeal, it is clearly made out that sec. 73A of the Code would not be attracted. It is evident that the survey and settlement as made by the princely states before the provisions of the Code were brought into force would be valid which has also been accepted by the High Court in the judgments referred to. In any view of the matter, the High Court in Second Appeal No. 236/86 and allied matters has clearly

¶36

Page 3 of 4

¶37

C/SCA/10796/2000 JUDGMENT

¶38

observed that there is no illegality in the transactions and the same were not barred by sec. 73A of the Code. Therefore, as it is an issue covered and decided by the High Court also in separate proceedings, the revenue authorities could not have a different version or different view. In any case, the exercise of jurisdiction at such a belated stage also is required to be considered that after such a long lapse of time it would not be justified considering the aspect of reasonable period for exercise of such powers.

¶39

The present petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. Prayer in terms of para 7(A) is granted. Both the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector dated 17.1.1980 as well as the order passed by the Dy. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, dated 11.7.2000 are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.

¶40

(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.)

¶41

(hn)

¶42

Page 4 of 4

Pravinchandra Valjibhai Thro' Poa Amrutlal B Bhakta v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravinchandra Valjibhai Thro' Poa Amrutlal B Bhakta v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harilal Lakhmanji Soni Vs State of Gujarat

Jaishri T Pandya Vs State of Gujarat

Veersingh Bhavanbhai Rathod Vs Collector Bhavnagar

Jerambhai Virbhai Ahir Since Deceased Thru Heirs Vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal

Doshi Enterprises Vs State of Gujarat

Bhulabhai Govindbhai Thro' Poasanmukhbhai Dahyabhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat