Back
2012 (3) GCD 1878 (Guj)
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Abhilasha Kumari
Rinki Shashikant Gandhi
Versus
Mamlatdar Vadodara Taluka & Ors.
Special Civil Application No. 8537 of 1998—Decided on 23/02/2012
Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 — Rules 106, 107, 108, 108(5), 108(6) — Revenue entry on basis of sale deed — Cancellation and order that land is forfeited to the State — Order of Collector — Jurisdiction and propriety of order — Finding of — In the case sale deed was executed on 15.04.1988 and registered on 24.01.1989 — Entry in respect of the same was muted on 09.01.1990 and confirmed on 12.02.1990 — Respondent Non raised dispute after 4 years much after the period of limitation of 60 days prescribed under Rule 108(5) — As such Collector ought not to have acted upon the proceedings by passing impugned order — Besides respondent No. 4 was himself a vendor of land has no lacus standi to challenge the entry in response to transaction to which he himself was a party — The Collector was acting under Rule 108(6) in R.T.S. proceeding therefore he had no jurisdiction to pass impugned order of forfeiture of land — In view of these Court set aside impugned order of Collector.
Held :
The judicial pronouncements and reasons, leads this Court to the following conclusions:
1. The proceedings initiated by the vendor, Respondent No. 4, after four years of execution of the sale transaction and five years of the registration thereof, suffer from delay, having been instituted after an unreasonably long period of time. As such, the Collector could not have acted upon those proceedings by passing the impugned order.
2. Respondent No. 4, being the vendor of the land in question has no locus standi to challenge the entry of sale, in respect of a transaction to which he was a willing party, after pocketing the sale consideration. Under these circumstances, Respondent No. 4 is not an aggrieved person and cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of his own wrong.
3. The Collector, under Sub-rule (6) of Rule 108 is not vested with power to direct forfeiture of the land to the State Government. The direction in the impugned order, to this effect, is beyond the jurisdiction vested in the Collector under Rule 108(6) in R.T.S. Proceedings.
4. The Collector, in exercise of power under Rule 108(6) in RTS proceedings cannot exercise power under the Fragmentation Act, merely by virtue of his position or designation or the fact that he may be acting in different capacities under different enactments. Being a quasi judicial authority, the Collector is bound to exercise power within the limits prescribed by the particular enactment under which he is called upon to adjudicate, and cannot transgress the limits of such statutory power, in a manner that overlaps a different enactment. By passing the impugned order, the Collector has transgressed the scope and ambit of the power conferred by Sub-rule (6) of Rule 108 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972, and has erroneously exercised power under the Fragmentation Act, which is not permissible.
5. No proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the Fragmentation Act and no notice has been issued to her under this enactment. By holding the sale transaction to be violative of the provisions of the Fragmentation Act and directing forfeiture of the land to the State Government, the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced, as it virtually amounts to setting aside the Sale Deed in RTS proceedings. [Para 25]
Law Laid Down :
To maintain petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the party aggrieved must show that any of his fundamental rights or any other legal rights have been infringed.
Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.—The challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order of the Collector, Vadodara, dated 29/08/1998, whereby the order of the Deputy Collector, Vadodara, dated 07/10/1996, has been quashed and set aside and Revenue Entry No. 685 made on the basis of the Sale Deed for the land in question, has been cancelled and the land has been forfeited to the State Government without encumbrances.
2. The factual background of the matter is that, the petitioner purchased land comprising Block No. 72, admeasuring 2 Acres and 1 Guntha, situated in Village Khanpur, Taluka and District Vadodara, by a Sale Deed executed on 15/04/1988, and registered on 24/01/1989, from Respondent No. 4, for a consideration of Rs. 28,000/-. On the basis of the Sale Deed, entry No. 685 was mutated in the revenue record on 09/01/1990, in favour of the petitioner, which was confirmed by the Mamlatdar on 12/02/1990. After a period of four years, much beyond the period of limitation of 60 days as prescribed in Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972, (“The Rules” for short) Respondent No. 4,the original land owner, challenged Revenue Entry No. 685 by filing an appeal, commonly known as an R.T.S. Appeal before the Deputy Collector. By order dated 07/10/1996, the said appeal was rejected on the ground of delay. Carrying the matter further, the original land owner filed an appeal against the order of the Deputy Collector, to the Collector. By the impugned order dated 29/08/1998, the Collector set aside the order of the Deputy Collector, cancelled Entry No. 685, and directed the land to be forfeited to the State Government, on the ground that the sale transaction entered into by the petitioner and Respondent No. 4, is violative of the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (“the Fragmentation Act’, for short). Aggrieved by the above-mentioned order of the Collector, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Mr. Shalin N. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has made detailed submissions, the crux of which is briefly summarised as below:
1. That the appeal filed by Respondent No. 4 is not competent as it has been filed after a period of four years, whereas the period of limitation prescribed in Rule 108(5) is 60 days. The Deputy Collector has rightly rejected the appeal on the ground of delay. However, the Collector has set aside the order of the Deputy Collector on legally unsustainable grounds.
2. That Respondent No. 4, who is the seller, has no locus standi to file the appeal. Having pocketed the sale consideration, and being a willing party to the Sale Deed, he cannot now contend that he is an aggrieved party and that the Sale Deed has been obtained by undue influence, inducement, or that there is a violation of the provisions of the Fragmentation Act. The Sale Deed has been executed on 15/04/1988, and registered on 24/01/1989. It was for the first time on 17/06/1994, that Respondent No. 4 raised the dispute, having remained silent for four to five years. Conduct such as that of Respondent No. 4 has been deprecated in several judicial pronouncements. Respondent No. 4 cannot be termed to be a “person aggrieved” so as to raise a dispute and cannot try to take advantage of his own wrong.
3. That the Collector, who was deciding an appeal under Rule 108(6), had no authority in law to examine the validity, or otherwise, of the Sale Deed, while exercising power under the Rules. Moreover, the question whether the Sale Deed is violative of the provisions of the Fragmentation Act, or not, is not one that can be decided in RTS proceedings. It is now a settled principle of law that revenue authorities cannot pass orders of cancelling the entries on an assumption that the transaction recorded in the entry is against the provisions of another enactment. While deciding an RTS appeal under the Rules, the Collector could not have cancelled En
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
