Allowed

Doshi Enterprises v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC2 Jul 2014SCA/4384/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special civil application challenged orders setting aside the petitioner's land purchase. The Court held that revisional powers must be exercised within a reasonable period and refused to quash a transaction based on past permissions, directing completion of formalities.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders passed on 25.10.2003 and 18.06.2013 were quashed. The petitioner was directed to deposit remaining dues; respondents directed to complete land formalities within three months.

Doshi Enterprises Vs State of Gujarat — Property and Title | Gujarat HC (2014)

¶1

C/SCA/4384/2004 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4384 of 2004

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA : Sd/-

¶6

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

¶7

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may NO be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the NO fair copy of the judgment?

¶9

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

¶10

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the NO civil judge?

¶11

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

¶12

DOSHI ENTERPRISES....Petitioner(s)

¶13

Versus

¶14

STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)

¶15

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

¶16

Appearance:

¶17

MR DN PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UDIT MEHTA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
MS PJ DAVAWALA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA

¶20

Date : 02/07/2014

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 226 and 227 of

¶23

the Constitution of India as well as under the

¶24

Page 1 of 10

¶25

C/SCA/4384/2004 JUDGMENT

¶26

provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the
Rules framed thereunder for the prayers inter alia
that the impugned order passed by the Secretary
(Appeals), Revenue Department dated 25.10.2003 in
the revision in purported exercise of powers under
Section 211 of the Code may be quashed and set
aside on the grounds stated in the petition.

¶27

2.Heard learned advocate, Shri D.N. Pandya for the
petitioner, learned AGP Shri Udit Mehta for the
respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate,
Mrs.P.J. Davawala for the respondent no.3.

¶28

3.As could be seen from the material on record, the
present case has a chequered history including
earlier round of litigation, which has discussed
in detail about the land in question that it was
purchased by the petitioner in an auction sale by
the respondent no.3, which was given to the
respondent no.3 subject to certain conditions,
however, as the land with super-structure was
badly affected in the cyclone and on the basis of
the reports regarding the cost of the repairing,
ultimately the respondent by auction sell sold the
land and, thereafter, as against market price of
Rs.97,000/-, amount of Rs.70,000/- was deposited

¶29

Page 2 of 10

¶30

C/SCA/4384/2004 JUDGMENT

¶31

by the respondent no.3 and, therefore, remaining
amount of Rs.27,000/- along with amount of premium
was to be paid. The said order was subjected to
further litigation by way of revision, for which
the order is produced at Annexure-E dated
29.10.1990. The said order passed by the Secretary
(Appeals), Revenue Department setting aside the
order of the Collector refers to the details about
the pros and cons of the price fixation as well as
need for such transaction of sell by the
respondent no.3. However, it was challenged by way
of Special Civil Application No.990/1991 and the
matter was remanded back for deciding afresh,
thereafter again, after giving notice, it was
required to be decided and the Secretary
(Appeals), by an order dated 25.08.2003, remanded
the matter back to the Collector, Bhavnagar for
deciding afresh.

¶32

4.In the present petition, it is challenged that
inspite of the order passed by the court including
the order passed in this very matter by the High
Court dated 25.03.2013, there is no finality.

¶33

5. As it transpires from the order of the High Court dated 25.03.2013, the direction has been given to

¶34

Page 3 of 10

¶35

C/SCA/4384/2004 JUDGMENT

¶36

the Collector, Bhavnagar to comply with the
earlier order of the High Court in this very
matter. It is pursuant to this order, the order
came to be passed, which is produced at Annexure-
R5 in the Remand Case No.37/2013 dated 18.06.2013.
As it transpires from the impugned order referring
to the past background as well as the direction
given by the High Court in this very petition, the
decision and the permission in favour of the
respondent no.3 has been set aside. It is
therefore required to be considered that the
petitioner has claimed that he is bonafide
purchaser of the land in question in an auction

¶37

sell and he has deposited the amount, which is
evident from the orders passed by this High Court
even in this matter.

¶38

6.A useful reference can also be made to the order
of this High Court in this very matter dated
27.12.2004, wherein it has been observed,

¶39

2.Prima facie it appears that the
petitioner was allotted the land under the
orders of the Collector and it is the case
of the respondent authority that there was
no proper valuation by the Valuation
Committee and the Collector had no
authority. What will be the effect of the

¶40

Page 4 of 10

¶41

C/SCA/4384/2004 JUDGMENT

¶42

transaction qua the rights of the allottee
and the transaction can be said as
bonafide or not shall be the questions
which will be decided at the time of final
hearing. However, prima facie it appears
that it may not be open to the State
Government after a period of more than 15
years to upset the transaction on the
ground of want of authority. So far as the
question of valuation is concerned, the
valuation report is produced as directed
by this Court and the same shows that the
valuation is of Rs.11.22 per sq. mtr.
However, there is addition of Rs.7.29 on
the ground that the land is to be used for
industrial purpose and is getting frontage
of 25% from the main road. Therefore,

¶43

there is an addition of 65% in valuation.
Prima facie it appears that an addition to
the extent of 40% cannot be said as

¶44

justifiable since the land was earlier
allotted for the purpose of godown for
storage of onion and the petitioner has
continued to use the same for the same
purpose. Further the land is allotted as
new tenure land.

¶45

3.Therefore, considering the facts and
circumstances, Rule. Ad-interim relief
granted earlier shall continue as interim
relief on condition that the petitioner
deposits an amount of Rs.15,000/= with the
District Collector, Bhavnagar without

¶46

Page 5 of 10

¶47

C/SCA/4384/2004 JUDGMENT

¶48

prejudice to the rights and contentions in
this petition and subject to the outcome
of this petition. ...............”

¶49

7.Thus it appears that at the relevant time, the
issue was with regard to the fixation of the price
and not the auction or transaction by the
respondent no.3 for the transfer or auction sell
in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the moot
question is whether inspite of this chequered
background and the history and round of
litigation, can the impugned order passed by the
Collector, Bhavnagar again be sustained, by which,
the Collector has set aside the order of 1987, by

¶50

which, the permission was granted to the
respondent no.3 to sell/transfer the land in
question by an auction on the ground that it is
not consistent with the law and, therefore, such
transaction under Section 21 of the Bombay General
Clauses Act has been set aside.

¶51

8. Though the submissions have been made referring to

¶52

the aspects of non-compliance with the conditions
and the background, the moot question is whether
such an order could be sustained, which is passed
setting aside earlier permission granted to the
respondent no.3 in the year 1987. It is required

¶53

Page 6 of 10

¶54

C/SCA/4384/2004 JUDGMENT

¶55

to be considered that the permission was granted
to the respondent no.3, which is again a limb of
the State inasmuch as it is a corporation
established by the State and the said respondent
no.3 having taken into consideration the pros and
cons of the so-called commercial wisdom decided to

¶56

sell the land in question by auction. It is
pursuant to this decision, person like the
petitioner has purchased and deposited the amount
partly as per the order passed by the court.
Therefore, the respondents in purported exercise
of powers after such a long lapse of period cannot
question the transaction or set aside the
transaction to the detriment of the person like
the petitioner. It is well settled that even if
the transaction is not valid or in breach of the
condition, same may be reconsidered in purported
exercise of the powers under the law like the Land
Revenue Code etc. Such power has to be exercised
within a reasonable period. The Hon'ble Apex Court
as well as this High Court in catena of judicial
pronouncement has discussed as to what could be
considered to be a reasonable period. The Hon’ble
Division bench of the high court in a judgment in

¶57

Page 7 of 10

¶58

C/SCA/4384/2004 JUDGMENT

¶59

case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. Vs.
State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2013 (2) GLR
1788 has referred to this aspect of reasonable
period and exercise of such powers. It has been
observed,

¶60

“It must be fairly said that if the statute
does not prescribe time limit for exercise
of revisional powers, it does not mean that
such powers can be exercised at any point
of time even if there is a breach of
Section 43 of the Act, which is a provision
which relates to a new tenure land, rather
it should be exercised within a reasonable
period of time. It is so because the law
does not expect a settled thing to be
unsettled after a long lapse of time. It is
clear from various judgments of the Supreme
Court that where a statutory provision for
exercise of any suo motu powers of revision
does not prescribe any limitation, the
powers must be exercised within a
reasonable period of time even in the case
of transaction which would be termed as
void transaction.”

¶61

9.Therefore assuming about the powers, it cannot be
exercised in such a manner after such long lapse

¶62

of time. Again, it has been subjected to
litigation and the respondent-State would be also
required to explain and justify such action on the

¶63

Page 8 of 10

¶64

C/SCA/4384/2004 JUDGMENT

¶65

ground of estoppel as well as principles of fair
play. On the basis of the permission validly
granted to its own corporation i.e. the respondent

¶66

no.3, the land came to the respondent no.3.
However, the respondent no.3 having realized about
certain litigation decided to sell it with
necessary permission, which is granted in 1987.
Based on such permission, further steps have been

¶67

taken and the person like the petitioner has
purchased the same in an auction sell, which is
sought to be cancelled now on the ground that it
is not consistent with the law, which cannot be
readily accepted. Further, though the learned
advocate has raised an issue with regard to the
deposit of an amount of Rs.15,000/-, it will be
subject to proper verification by the Collector,
Bhavnagar. It is in this background, the present
petition deserves to be allowed.

¶68

10.In the circumstances, the present petition stands
allowed in terms of Para No.9(B). The order at
Annexure-A dated 25.10.2003 and the order at
Annexure-R5 in Remand Case No.37/2013 by the
District Collector, Bhavnagar dated 18.06.2013 are
hereby quashed and set aside subject to the

¶69

Page 9 of 10

¶70

C/SCA/4384/2004 JUDGMENT

¶71

clarification that the petitioner shall deposit
the amount, if it is not already paid. The
respondent no.3 and/or the respondent no.1 are
directed to take appropriate steps with regard to
completing the necessary formalities pursuant to
the purchase of the land in an auction by the
petitioner subject to the payment of the remaining
amount of the price. Therefore, the petitioner
shall deposit or make the payment of the amount
including the additional amount @ 7.29, if not
already deposited or paid. Such formalities will
be completed within a period of three months by
the respondents. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent.

¶72

Sd/-
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.)

¶73

Gautam

¶74

Page 10 of 10

Doshi Enterprises v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doshi Enterprises 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jerambhai Virbhai Ahir Since Deceased Thru Heirs Vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal

Pravinchandra Valjibhai Thro' Poa Amrutlal B Bhakta Vs State of Gujarat

Harilal Lakhmanji Soni Vs State of Gujarat

Bhulabhai Govindbhai Thro' Poasanmukhbhai Dahyabhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Indraprastha Tower Cooperative Housing Sty Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat

Patel Ramjibhai Madhabhai Vs State of Gujarat