Remanded

Dhirubha Agarsinh Rana v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC16 Jun 2021LPA/1466/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge order dismissing a revision application. The Court held that lower authorities erred in ignoring a Partition Deed evidence regarding the appellant's agricultural status. It remanded the matter to the Revenue Tribunal for fresh consideration after the amendment removing territorial limits.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed; the order dismissing S.C.A. No. 2948 of 1997 and orders of Revenue Authorities are set aside; matter remanded to Gujarat Revenue Tribunal for fresh orders de novo

Dhirubha Agarsinh Rana Vs State of Gujarat — Land Acquisition | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

C/LPA/1466/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021 DHIRUBHA AGARSINH RANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1466 of 2013 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2948 of 1997

¶3

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶4

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶5

and

¶6

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 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 or any order made thereunder ?

¶11

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

¶12

DHIRUBHA AGARSINH RANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s)

¶13

================================================================== Appearance: MR SN SHELAT , SR. ADVOCATE with MR VIKAS V NAIR (7444) for the Appellant(s) No. 1

¶14

MR SOHAM JOSHI , AGP for the Respondent-State. MR RS SANJANWALA , SR. ADVOCATE with MR SUNIL S JOSHI (2925) for the Respondent(s) No. 4.1

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

¶17

Date : 16/06/2021

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

C/LPA/1466/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021 DHIRUBHA AGARSINH RANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s)

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)

¶21

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the Order dated 24.10.2013 / 25.10.2013 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Special Civil Application No. 2948 of 1997 Dhirubhai Agarsinh Rana vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsels, we are of the opinion that the matter would require remand back to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal who decided the Revision Application filed by the Appellant-Petitioner on 30.7.1993 upholding the Order passed by the First Appellate Authority namely, the Dy. Collector (Prant Adhikari) who also dismissed on 28.2.1988 the First Appeal filed by the Appellant-Petitioner against the Order of the Mamlatdar dated 18.1.1985 , by which, the land in question was resumed to the State under Section 84C of the Gujarat Tenancy Act.

¶23

The sale by the Respondent No.4 namely, Ishwarbhai Mohanbhai Patel who was represented by his widow Smt. Revaben ,who later on is represented by her Legal Representatives Kantibhai Ishwarbhai Patel etc. and who are Respondent No.4 before us, sold the land in question to the present Appellant-Petitioner Dhirubhai Agarsinh Rana under the Sale Deed dated 26.7.1982 and Mutation Entry with regard to that was made on 9.10.1982.

¶24

However, the Mamlatdar initiated suo moto proceedings in Tenancy Case No. 4530 of 1984 and on the ground that the AppellantPetitioner Dhirubhai Agarsinh Ranan was not an Agriculturist. The Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Mamlatdar on the ground that the land in question was within the prescribed limit of 5 Miles or 8 Kilometers as then prescribed under the Tenancy Act, which, law was

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

C/LPA/1466/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021 DHIRUBHA AGARSINH RANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s)

¶27

later on amended and the said limit of 5 Miles or 8 Kilometers was removed and that amendment of 1995 was made retrospective.

¶28

Learned senior counsel Mr. S.N.Shelat, with Mr. Vikas Nair for the Appellant has argued before us that it is true that the original Partition Deed of Agricultural land between the 5 brothers of which AppellantPetitioner Dhirubhai Agarsinh Rana was one and he was a member of the family, was not produced before the First Appellate Tribunal but the same was produced for the first time before the learned Single Judge and also before this Court in the present Letters Patent Appeal, the said Partition Deed was executed in 1958 and consequent mutation entries were made in the Revenue Record which were produced before Dy.Collector indicates that the Appellant-Petitioner Dhirubhai Agarsinh Rana got some part of the agricultural land and since the limit of territory in the form of 5 Miles or 8 Kilometers was removed by amendment of law retrospectively, therefore, his status as being an Agriculturists could not have been denied by the authorities below. But, since the sale in favour of the Appellant-Petitioner has been held to be violative of Section 63 of the Act and land in question has been forfeited by the Mamlatdar Vide Order dated 18.1.1985 , the matter deserves to be re-examined by the learned Tribunal in the light of the said evidence in the form of Partition Deed and consequent revenue entries which prove the status of the Appellant-Petitioner being an Agriculturists.

¶29

Learned Government Counsel was unable to rebut this contention about the non-consideration of the Partition Deed of 1958 by the authorities below. He however, submitted that the authorities below have concurrently held against the petitioner that he was not an agriculturalist and therefore the sale was in violation of Section 63 of the Act and therefore resumption of the land or forfeiture thereof in favour of the State was proper.

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

C/LPA/1466/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021 DHIRUBHA AGARSINH RANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s)

¶32

There is another angle to the dispute which we may not be required to touch, is a Civil Suit filed by the present Appellant-Petitioner namely, for recovery of the sale consideration as the sale in his favour was held to be illegal and violative of Section 63 and which Suit was decreed to the extent of Rs. 20,20,491/- . The said Civil Suit was decreed in favour of the Appellant-Petitioner on 28.3.2001 against one Defendant M/s. Jayshree Development Corporation who seems to have acquired some right in the land in question, which is subject matter of the present controversy.

¶33

We are of the opinion that the authorities below as well as the learned Single Judge, with respects, have erred in ignoring a significant evidence in the form of a Partition Deed which prima facie indicates that the Appellant-Petitioner was an Agriculturist within the meaning of the Tenancy Act and the sale in question is his favour under the Sale Deed dated 26.7.1982 could not have been held to be void ab initio or illegal atleast for the reasons assigned by the authorities below. Since the law was amended to ignore the territorial limit of 5 Miles or 8 Kilometers for the land to be treated as agricultural land or otherwise, therefore, this could not have been a ground to ignore the sale in favour of the Appellant-Petitioner.

¶34

This aspect of the matter seems to have not been properly appreciated by the authorities below and negligence on the part of the Appellant-Petitioner to have produced the Partition Deed itself before the authority below in the first instance namely, before the Mamlatdar while he passed the Order on 18.1.1985 also cannot be a ground enough to ignore the sale. However, if the said documents can be produced and proved in accordance with law and these documents of the contemporary period duly registered and on the basis of which the mutation entries were

¶35

Page 4 of 6

¶36

C/LPA/1466/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021 DHIRUBHA AGARSINH RANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s)

¶37

made in the revenue record, the revenue authorities cannot be permitted to ignore the same altogether and failure on the part of the AppellantPetitioner to produce the same in the first instance before the Mamlatdar cannot be allowed to over shadow these documents.

¶38

The quest of justice or quest of truth cannot be prematurely killed merely because of slight negligence on the part of the party or their Advocate to produce the relevant documents at the relevant point of time and the revenue authorities are not absolved of their duty to go deeper and summon such record from the concerned authorities of the Revenue Department itself, namely, their counter parts and give due credence to the same and consider the effect of the same in accordance with law. That having not been done, to us it appears that a serious miscarriage of justice has resulted in the present case.

¶39

Therefore, we are left with no other alternative but to restore the matter back to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal to consider the entire matter afresh and pass fresh orders in accordance with law after giving the opportunity of hearing and opportunity to the parties to lead proper evidence on both the sides.

¶40

Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and the Order of learned Single Judge dated 24.10.2013 / 25.10.2013 dismissing the Special Civil Application No. 2948 of 1997 as well as all the three orders passed by the Revenue Authorities below, namely, the Order of Mamlatdar dated 18.1.1985 , Order of the Dy. Collector Appeals (Prant Adhikari) dated 28.2.1988 and that of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 30.7.1993, are set aside.

¶41

The parties in the first instance without any further notice may appear before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 15.7.2021 and a copy of

¶42

Page 5 of 6

¶43

C/LPA/1466/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021 DHIRUBHA AGARSINH RANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s)

¶44

this Order may be sent to the said learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal forthwith and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing and allowing proper evidence in the matter, the learned Tribunal may pass fresh appropriate reasoned orders again de novo in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made by us in this order within next period of 6 months, as the matter otherwise pertains to a very old period.

¶45

With these observations, the Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶46

(DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J)

¶47

(B.N. KARIA, J)

¶48

NAIR SMITA V.

¶49

Page 6 of 6

Dhirubha Agarsinh Rana v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirubha Agarsinh Rana 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

Krunal Hasmukhbhai Shethiya Vs Khushboo W/O Krunal Hasmukhbhai Shethiya

Urvashiben Kanubhai Shah Vs State of Gujarat

Legal Heirs and Reps. of Decd. Ratilal Chunilal Rana and Decd. Parvatiben Ratilal Rana Vs Ol of M/S Anand Cotspin Ltd.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anish Zuzarbhai Patel

Deputy Manager Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs Thakor Agarsinh Amthaji

Nikunjbhai Jashvantbhai Jadav Vs Vaghela Hetalben Chandubhai Wife of Jadav Nikunjbhai Jashavantbhai