Allowed

Jayantibhai Girdharbhai Sakariya v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC6 Jul 2021LPA/81/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal and disposed of the civil applications. The Court directed Revenue Authorities to maintain the existing revenue entry in favour of the appellants subject to pending civil suits, and ordered maintenance of status quo without creating further third-party rights.

What did the court decide?

Revenue Authorities to maintain revenue entry in favour of appellants; status quo of property to be maintained; no third party rights without leave of Trial Court.

Jayantibhai Girdharbhai Sakariya Vs State of Gujarat — Property and Title | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

C/LPA/81/2016 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2021 JAYANTIBHAI GIRDHARBHAI SAKARIYA & Anr v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 Ors.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 81 of 2016

¶4

¶5

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12136 of 2015

¶6

With

¶7

CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2016

¶8

In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 81 of 2016

¶9

With

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2021 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 81 of 2016

¶11

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

¶12

JAYANTIBHAI GIRDHARBHAI SAKARIYA & 1 other(s) Versus

¶13

STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 other(s)

¶14

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

¶15

Appearance:

¶16

MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA, Counsel for Appellant Nos. 1,2

¶17

MR SOAHAM JOSHI, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 MR BM MANGUKIYA, Counsel for the Respondent(s) No. 5

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶20

and

¶21

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

¶22

Date : 06/07/2021

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)

¶25

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order

¶26

dated 30.07.2015 of the learned Single Judge whereby the

¶27

learned Single Judge dismissed Special Civil Application

¶28

Page 1 of 8

¶29

C/LPA/81/2016 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2021 JAYANTIBHAI GIRDHARBHAI SAKARIYA & Anr v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 Ors.

¶30

No. 12136 of 2015 – Jayantibhai Girdharbhai Sakariya & Another vs. State of Gujarat & 5 others .

¶31

The brief facts as noted in para 2 of the order of the learned Single Judge are quoted below for ready reference:

¶32

“2. The brief facts of the case are that the present petitioners, who are husband and wife, are power-ofattorney holders of Respondent No.5, herein. Respondent No.5 executed the power-of-attorney in favour of the petitioners on 03.07.2006 and on 08.05.2007, the petitioner No.1, herein, sold the property in question to petitioner No.2, i.e. his wife, by executing registered sale deed dated 08.05.2007. In that regard a pencil entry being entry No.805 was made, which came to objected by respondent No.5, which gave rise to Dispute Case No.3/07/2008 before respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 vide his order dated 21.01.2008, discarded the objections raised by respondent No.5 and posted the entry

¶33

Page 2 of 8

¶34

C/LPA/81/2016 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2021 JAYANTIBHAI GIRDHARBHAI SAKARIYA & Anr v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 Ors.

¶35

No.805 in favour of the present petitioners. it appears that during the pendancy of the aforesaid case, Respondent No.5 preferred a suit being Civil Suit No.491 of 2007 for declaration and permanent injunction, whereas, petitioner No.2, herein, has also preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 507 of 2007. It appears that injunction applications preferred in both the suits by respondent No.5 as well as petitioner No.2 were dismissed and the suits are pending final adjudication. Being aggrieved with the order dated 21.01.2008, respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before Respondent No.3, which came to be allowed in part vide order dated 14.02.2011. However, as respondent No.5 was not satisfied with the same, he approached Respondent No.2 by filing revision 87/10/11, which came to be rejected, with the observations and direction that revision application be decided by 31.05.2014 and till then, the order passed by the Collector shall remain

¶36

Page 3 of 8

¶37

C/LPA/81/2016 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2021 JAYANTIBHAI GIRDHARBHAI SAKARIYA & Anr v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 Ors.

¶38

stayed. Hence, the present petition.”

¶39

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with the following reasons:

¶40

“4. Heard. An unscrupulous power-of-attorney holder, who goes on selling the property one after the other, is before this Court, challenging the order of the Collector as well as Revenue, which has directed that during the pendancy of the Civil Suit, the power-of-attorney, i.e. the petitioner, will not alienate the property in question. The revision preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed and his coming before this Court, itself, goes to show his ill-will and ill-intentions, whereby, he seeks to further alienate the property by creating third party rights.

¶41

5. I had given a suggestion to Mr. Chhaya,

¶42

learned Advocate for the petitioner, to withdraw this

¶43

Page 4 of 8

¶44

C/LPA/81/2016 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2021 JAYANTIBHAI GIRDHARBHAI SAKARIYA & Anr v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 Ors.

¶45

petition, since, it smelt of total illegality and fraud and the petitioner has come before this Court, against the orders passed by the authorities below, neither with the clean heart nor the clean hands and as any observation by this Court would come in the way of the petitioner in pending civil suits. However, Mr. Chhaya did not accept the said suggestion and addressed this court on the merits of the matter. In the opinion of this Court, when the civil suits between the parties are pending before the Civil Courts, the creation of third party rights by such an unscrupulous person like the present petitioner, would result into denial of rights of the lawful owner, i.e. Respondent No.5, herein. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, this petition cannot be entertained. Even otherwise, the grounds raised in this petition does not call for interference with the impugned orders at the hands of this Court. Hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold

¶46

Page 5 of 8

¶47

C/LPA/81/2016 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2021 JAYANTIBHAI GIRDHARBHAI SAKARIYA & Anr v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 Ors.

¶48

and is DISMISSED. No order as to costs.”

¶49

Mr. Satyam Chhaya, learned counsel for the Appellants

¶50

submitted that the learned District Collector, while dismissing the revision application vide order dated 31.01.2012 filed by Respondent Mr. Vishal Lakhmanbhai Sakariya , had no jurisdiction to further impose restriction on the Respondent, i.e. present Appellant not to deal with the property by way of sale, mortgage, etc. and therefore aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition was filed by the Petitioners / Appellants which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence the present Appeal.

¶51

Mr. Chhaya, learned counsel submitted that the entry in revenue record was made on the basis of Sale Deed executed by the Power of Attorney Holder of Respondent Mr. Vishal Lakhmanbhai Sakariya and that entry should be kept intact subject to the decision of the Civil Suits pending before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gondal, viz. Regular Civil Suit No.491 of 2007 and Regular Civil Suit No.507 of 2007

¶52

Page 6 of 8

¶53

C/LPA/81/2016 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2021 JAYANTIBHAI GIRDHARBHAI SAKARIYA & Anr v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 Ors.

¶54

are pending trial.

¶55

On the other hand, Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned counsel for the private Respondent submitted that the parties should be directed to maintain status quo of the property in question as the Power of Attorney Holder of Respondent had no right to transfer the said property and that is the subject matter of challenge before the learned Trial Court and therefore, unnecessary third party right should not be allowed to be created by the Appellants during the pendency of this litigation and both the parties should maintain the status quo of the property in question.

¶56

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the present Letters Patent Appeal can be disposed of by directing the Revenue Authorities to maintain the revenue entry in favour of the Appellants, as it is already made, and which will remain subject to the decision of the two aforesaid Civil Suits. We further direct that the status quo of the property in question shall be maintained by both the parties and no further alienation of the property in question and no third party

¶57

Page 7 of 8

¶58

C/LPA/81/2016 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2021 JAYANTIBHAI GIRDHARBHAI SAKARIYA & Anr v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 Ors.

¶59

rights shall be created, without the specific leave of the Trial Court in the pending suits.

¶60

With the aforesaid observations, the present Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. Civil Applications are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶61

(DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J)

¶62

(B.N. KARIA, J)

¶63

Bharat

¶64

Page 8 of 8

Jayantibhai Girdharbhai Sakariya v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayantibhai Girdharbhai Sakariya 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamnagar Municipal Corporation Vs Shri 5 Navtanpuri Dham Khijada Mandir Trust

Kutchh District Panchayat Vs Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja

Rana Anvarbhai Vajesinh Vs State of Gujarat

Ravjibhai Prabhudas Patel Since Decd.Thr'Heirs Vs Additional Collector and Competent Authority U.L.C.

Taramati D/O Chatrabhujbhai W/O Kantilal Harakhchand Vora Vs Ranjanben Arvindbhai Vora (Decd.)

Vijaybhai Kantibhai Patel Vs Jangleshwar Mahadev Trust