Petitioner withdrew a writ application under Article 226 challenging non-agricultural permission without hearing, obtaining liberty to approach civil court regarding the sale deed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/SCA/17985/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17985 of 2013
==========================================================
ARVINDBHAI KALIDAS PADHIYAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HD VASAVADA(974) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR TRILOK J PATEL(658) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 4 MR RAKESH PATEL, AGP (5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 06/08/2018
ORAL ORDER
“17A. Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and or any other writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari prohibition or the like by quashing and setting aside a non agriculture permission granted in the land in question Situated Gotri Ta- District Baroda, Bearing Block /survey no.127 Admeasuring about 1 hector 24 ara and 24 Square meter without hearing the petitioner and in contravention of judgment and order dated 27/4/11 passed below LPA no 71/10 by the Hon'ble Division bench of this Hon'ble court.
AND/OR
Page 1 of 5
C/SCA/17985/2013 ORDER
B. Your Lordships be pleased to issue a suitable writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus and or the like by directing the Respondent authorities not to grant NA permission in the subject matter of land in question and or not to deal with the same or not to interfere with the tenure of the said land by changing and or converting the tenure and or condition terms etc. of the said land contrary to the interest and the rights of the petitioner above named.
AND/OR
C. Your Lordships be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 31/7/2013 passed below revision application 57/2013 and 58/2013 by the learned judge of the Gujarat State Revenue Tribunal.
AND/OR
D. Your Lordships be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the District collector Baroda granting NA permission in the subject matter of the land of the petitioner without hearing the petitioner.
AND/OR
E. During the pendency of this writ petition Your Lordships be pleased to grant suitable interim
Page 2 of 5
C/SCA/17985/2013 ORDER
relief, by quashing and setting aside NA permission granted in the land in question without hearing the petitioner and contrary to his objection.
AND/OR
F. By way of interim relief your lordships be pleased to stay execution operation and implementation of the NA permission granted by the District Collector Baroda and confirm by the Revenue Tribunal of the state by its order dated 31/7/2013.
AND/OR
Page 3 of 5
C/SCA/17985/2013 ORDER
Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The restriction over the land came to be lifted. The order was taken in suo moto review by the Deputy Collector. During the interregnum period, the land came to be transferred in favour of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 herein. The Deputy Collector took the view that the restrictions under Sections 43 of the Act could not have been lifted. The matter reached right upto this Court and the order of the Deputy Collector came to be affirmed. Later, the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 herein being the purchasers of the land in question preferred an application some time in the year 2011 for regularisation of their possession and also showed their readiness and willingness to pay the entire amount of premium. The same came to be accepted by the Collector. It is at this stage that the petitioner herein came to know that the transaction had been validated without hearing him. The petitioner approached the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal declined to interfere with the order passed by the Collector regularising the entire transaction. In such circumstances, the petitioner is here before this Court by way of this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Page 4 of 5
C/SCA/17985/2013 ORDER
petitioner submitted that his client has a serious doubt whether his forefathers or the predecessor-in-title had actually executed such sale deed or not. Well, if such is the issue, then the right remedy for the petitioner is to approach the competent Civil Court and question the legality and validity of the sale deed not on the ground that the same is in violation of Section 43 of the Act but on other grounds like fraud, etc.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J)
MAYA
Page 5 of 5
Arvindbhai Kalidas Padhiyar
State of Gujarat
J.B.Pardiwala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
