Allowed

Bai Jambuben Wd/O Khandubhai Manchhabhai Garasia v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC17 Feb 2021SCA/6340/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gujarat High Court allowed writ petitions challenging orders passed by Revenue Authorities for failing to consider written submissions and violating principles of natural justice. The Court quashed the orders and directed the authorities to pass reasoned orders after affording a fresh hearing opportunity while maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned orders; directed authorities to grant fresh hearing opportunity and pass reasoned orders expediently; maintained status quo regarding land possession and title.

Bai Jambuben Wd/O Khandubhai Manchhabhai Garasia Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

C/SCA/11385/2006 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11385 of 2006 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11386 of 2006 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6340 of 2009

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

¶6

================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	========= No
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	No

¶7

================================================================ AMRUTBHAI MANCHHABHAI GARASIA SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HEIRS

¶8

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 other(s)

¶9

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

¶10

Appearance:

¶11

DECEASED LITIGANT(100) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.6.1,1.6.2,1.6.3,1.6.4

¶12

MR DHARMESH DEVNANI AGP (1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5 MR.HARDIK B SHAH(3751) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5 RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI Date : 17/02/2021

¶15

COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging legality and validity of the orders

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

C/SCA/11385/2006 JUDGMENT

¶19

passed by the Revisional Authorities below and as such, individual reliefs claimed in the petitions are incorporated here under :-

¶20

Special Civil Application No. 11385 of 2006

¶21

“(A) Your LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or directions and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned (1) common order dated 26-04-2006 passed by the respondent No.1 in R. T. S. Revision Case No. 74 of 2004, (2) order dtd. 22-01-2002 passed by the Ld. Dist Collector Surat in RTS/REVISION CASE NO./17/2000 qua the petitioner.

¶22

(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition Your LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the impugned order dated 26-04-2006 passed by the respondent No.1 in R. T. S. Revision Case No. 74/2004 & 131 of 2005 and order dtd. 22-01-2002 passed by the Ld. Dist Collector Surat in RTS/REVISION CASE NO./17/2000 qua the petitioner.

¶23

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other and further orders in the interest of justice.”

¶24

Special Civil Application No. 11386 of 2006

¶25

“(A) Your LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or directions and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned (1) common order dated 26-04-2006 passed by the respondent No.1 in R. T. S. Revision Case No. 131 of 2005, (2) order dtd. 22-01-2002 passed by the Ld. Dist Collector Surat in RTS/REVISION CASE NO./17/2000 qua the petitioner.

¶26

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

C/SCA/11385/2006 JUDGMENT

¶29

NO./17/2000 qua the petitioner.

¶30

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other and further orders in the interest of justice.”

¶31

Special Civil Application No. 6340 of 2009

¶32

“(A) To issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31.5.2008 (Annexure-DD) and order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure-FF).

¶33

(B) To grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.”

¶34

When the matters are taken up for hearing, learned advocate Mr. N. V. Gandhi appearing for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the Revisional Authority while passing the impugned common order has not considered the written submissions canvassed before him by the petitioners and though the said written submissions are forming part of the record, it appears that the same has not been dealt with at all and no reasons are recorded to that effect. It has further been pointed out that no fair opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioners and had it been given, the petitioners ought to have pressed into service the written submissions at the time when actual hearing must have been afforded and as such, he has requested that by quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1, direction be issued to give a fresh look to the proceedings and after extending full opportunity to the parties to the proceedings, fresh order be passed in accordance with law after assigning proper reasons.

¶35

Page 3 of 6

¶36

C/SCA/11385/2006 JUDGMENT

¶37

2.1 One additional submission has also been made that the revenue authorities have exercised the powers after gross unreasonable period, but be that as it may, the order impugned is reflecting nonapplication of mind as the contentions have not been dealt with at all.

¶38

In so far as Special Civil Application No. 6340 of 2009 is concerned, learned advocate Mr. Hardik Shah appearing for the petitioner has submitted that this petition is basically against the refusal of interim order which has been passed by the learned Secretary (Appeals) reflecting on page 245 of petition's compilation and the said order is passed without application of mind and without extending any opportunity to the parties to the proceedings and as such, such a nonreasoned order which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice may not be allowed to stand in the eye of law and simultaneously, a request is made that main Revision Application No. 42 of 2008, if pending, may be expeditiously dealt with and decided in accordance with law.

¶39

Therefore, in the present proceedings, both the learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have jointly submitted with consent that the orders in question be quashed and set aside for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after extending proper opportunity to the parties to the proceedings.

¶40

To this submission, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dharmesh Devnani appearing on behalf of the State authorities has broadly submitted that the authority will readily consider fresh points which may be submitted by the petitioners before it and will extend opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and will pass a fresh order in accordance with law and as such, has also requested that the matter may be remanded back after quashing the orders impugned.

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

C/SCA/11385/2006 JUDGMENT

¶43

Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, the orders impugned in the petitions and the fact that both the learned advocates have given their consent to set aside the orders since the orders in question are in violation of principles of natural justice, this Court is of the opinion that if the respondent authorities are directed to give a fresh look to the issue in question and extend full opportunity to the petitioner concerned and the parties to the proceedings, the same would meet the ends of justice. Since learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties have requested the Court not to express any opinion on merits and not to assign any reason in detail, this Court without assigning any detailed reasons would like to dispose of the petitions on the following lines:-

¶44

6.1 Impugned common order dated 26.04.2006 passed by respondent No.2 authority in Special Civil Application Nos. 11385 of 2006 and Special Civil Application No. 11386 of 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside with a specific direction that the respondent authority will grant fresh opportunity to the petitioners and the parties to the proceedings and after considering their respective submissions, a reasoned order be passed strictly in accordance with law.

¶45

6.2 In so far as Special Civil Application No. 6340 of 2009 is concerned, with the consent of learned advocates, the impugned order reflecting on page 245 of petition's compilation by virtue of which interim relief request has been turned down in main Revision Application No. 42 of 2008 is hereby quashed and set aside with a direction to respondent No.1 authority to grant fresh opportunity to the parties to the proceedings and shall pass afresh order in accordance with law by assigning adequate reasons and will hear and dispose of the main Revision Application No. 42 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible. Since the issue between the parties appears to be long drawn litigation, it is expected that the respondent authority shall pass afresh order in

¶46

Page 5 of 6

¶47

C/SCA/11385/2006 JUDGMENT

¶48

accordance with law as well as expeditiously as possible. By that time, since learned advocates have given consent and requested the Court to dispose of the present petitions on the aforesaid lines, both the parties to maintain status quo as regards the possession and title of the land in question.

¶49

With the above observations and direction, the present petitions stand allowed with no order as to costs.

¶50

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)

¶51

cmk

¶52

Page 6 of 6

Bai Jambuben Wd/O Khandubhai Manchhabhai Garasia v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bai Jambuben Wd/O Khandubhai Manchhabhai Garasia 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

Lalitkumar Natubhai Patel Vs Collector Surat

Ramanlal Davalbhai Patel Vs Amc

Rameshchandra Davalbhai Patel Vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. Thr' Municipal Corporation

Manekben D/O Ramabhai Dhanji Bhai Vs State of Gujarat

Manojbhai Dahyabhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Atulbhai Dahyabhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat