Partly allowed

Rana Ranjitsinh Parakramsinh v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC14 Jul 2021LPA/102/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat allowed Letters Patent Appeals filed by an original landowner against an order granting possession of surplus land to allottees. The Court held that the Single Judge erred in condoning errors omissions by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and Deputy Collector who acted without hearing the allottees, and set aside the lower courts orders, remanding the matter for a fresh decisi

What did the court decide?

Order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.10.2008 set aside; matter remanded to Gujarat Revenue Tribunal to decide afresh after hearing all parties.

Rana Ranjitsinh Parakramsinh Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

C/LPA/101/2009 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2021 RANA RANJITSINH PARAKRAMSINH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

1. R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 101 of 2009 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7069 of 1999

¶4

With

¶5

2. R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 102 of 2009 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7072 of 1999

¶6

With

¶7

3. R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 103 of 2009 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7073 of 1999

¶8

With

¶9

4. R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 104 of 2009 In

¶10

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7074 of 1999

¶11

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

¶12

RANA RANJITSINH PARAKRAMSINH

¶13

Versus

¶14

STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)

¶15

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

¶16

Appearance:

¶17

MR H M JADEJA(2437) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR KANVA ANTANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR ASHOK N PARMAR(2431) for the Respondent(s) No. 4 MR SV PARMAR(592) for the Respondent(s) No. 4 MR. HARIVADAN MISHRA(3753) for the Respondent(s) No. 4 RULE SERVED BY DS(65) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI and

¶20

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 14/07/2021

¶21

COMMON ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)

¶23

These all appeals are directed against the order dated

¶24

21.10.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special

¶25

Civil Application No. 7069 of 1999 allowing writ petition filed

¶26

Page 1 of 5

¶27

C/LPA/101/2009 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2021 RANA RANJITSINH PARAKRAMSINH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)

¶28

by the petitioner – Valiben B. Vankar Vs. Rana Ranjitsinh

¶29

Parakramsinh with the following observations:

¶30

“3. Having heard the learned advocate Mr. SV Parmar for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.HM Jadeja for private respondent and Ms. Manisha Lavkumar for State of Gujarat, I find that the impugned orders cannot sustain. As already noted, order passed by Mamlatdar & ALT declaring certain portion of the land of deceased Parakramsinh as surplus was never challenged by him or his heirs. Some other persons claiming to have purchased the land through auction sale approached Deputy Collector challenging the order passed by Mamlatdar. This appeal was dismissed. On that basis heirs of original land owner deceased Parakramsinh approached Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. In the meantime, possession of excess land was already taken over by the Government and it was distributed among different persons including the petitioners. These persons were not joined as parties before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal entertained the revision application and allowed it without realizing that the revision applicants had never challenged the order passed by the Mamlatdar before higher authorities and had thus accepted the same and the same had also become final. Equally importantly Deputy Collector acted on the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal without hearing the petitioner who by then was enjoying possession of the land since few years and actually cultivating the same.

¶31

Page 2 of 5

¶32

C/LPA/101/2009 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2021

¶33

RANA RANJITSINH PARAKRAMSINH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)

¶34

4. For all accounts the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and consequential order passed by the Deputy Collector cannot be stated to be legal. The said orders are therefore quashed and set aside. State Government shall restore possession of the land to the present petitioners expeditiously and in any case not later than 31.12.2008.

¶35

5. With these directions, the petitions are disposed of. Rule is made absolute in each of the petitions.”

¶36

The petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 7069 of 1999 was filed by the allottees of the land which was declared surplus under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act by the Mamlatdar in Ceiling Case No. 36 of 1977 vide order dated 31.01.1989 . The land in question appears to have been mortgaged with the bank, who auctioned the land in question and the auction purchasers of the land in question challenged the order of the Mamlatdar and not the original land holder viz. Rana Parakramsinh which appeal came to be dismissed by the Deputy Collector on 08.11.1993 . The Revision Petition was filed by the original land holder Rana Parakramasinh which was dismissed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal viz. TEN BA No.15/1994 . In the meanwhile, the land in question declares surplus under the

¶37

Page 3 of 5

¶38

C/LPA/101/2009 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2021 RANA RANJITSINH PARAKRAMSINH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)

¶39

Ceiling Law was distributed and allotted to the member of the Scheduled Caste Community petitioner - Valiben B. Vankar in Special Civil Application No. 7069 of 1999 . Since the learned Tribunal, without hearing the allottees the petitioner in Special Civil Application, ordered eviction and consequential order was passed by the learned Deputy Collector dated 13.08.1996 , they approached the learned Single Judge by the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 7069 of 2099 which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge directing the respondents to restore the possession of the land in question in favour of the allottees. Aggrieved by the same, Letters Patent Appeals have been filed by the original land holder - Rana Parakramasinh before this Court.

¶40

Having heard learned Counsels for the respective parties, we are of the opinion that the matter deserves to go back to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. As admittedly, the orders were passed by the Tribunal without hearing the affected parties viz. allottees of the land in question by the State Government. We are unable to appreciate the reasons for the same and in our opinion, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ought to have been

¶41

Page 4 of 5

¶42

C/LPA/101/2009 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2021 RANA RANJITSINH PARAKRAMSINH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)

¶43

aware of the fact of the allotment of the land in question in favour of the petitioner - Valiben B. Vankar before the learned Single Judge and without giving an opportunity of hearing to them could not have been decided the appeal before it. Therefore, present Letters Patent Appeals are allowed by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.10.2008. The matter is restored back to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal to decide the appeal/appeals afresh in accordance with the law after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties in the matters.

¶44

All parties will be free to raise the respective contentions including the application of bringing legal representatives of the deceased parties before the said Tribunal.

¶45

With the above observations, present Letters Patent

¶46

Appeals are disposed of. No costs.

¶47

Parties may appear before the Tribunal on 23.08.2021 at 11:00 a.m.

¶48

(DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J)

¶49

(B.N. KARIA, J)

¶50

rakesh/

¶51

Page 5 of 5

Rana Ranjitsinh Parakramsinh v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rana Ranjitsinh Parakramsinh 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

Harshad N Dave Vs the Regional Manager

State of Gujarat Vs Sursangji Dholaji Thakor

Kamshibhai Raghabhai Vs Chief Conservator of Forest

Rana Ranjitsinh Parakramsinh Vs State of Gujarat

Rana Ranjitsinh Parakramsinh Vs State of Gujarat

Rana Ranjitsinh Parakramsinh Vs State of Gujarat