Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 347
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
K.J. Thaker, J.
Manrao Rasiklal Jaiswal - Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 30703 of 2007
Decided On: 24.02.2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant: Megha Jani
For the Respondents: Rutvik Oza
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 -Direction quashing and setting aside order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Annexure-A) to the extent it gives direction for regularising transaction - Respondents to maintain status quo with respect to nature, holding and possession of land - Tribunal, vide order dated 28.11.2007 held that the land was of restricted land tenure and the restriction imposed by Section 43 of the Tenancy Act applied to the land. However, 4 transactions in favour of the respondents no. 5 to 10 dated 14.10.1999 was regularised on payment of premium - Challenged - Held, there is no contention that the sale is bad, Going through the entire record, three things emerge , One that purchase during the window period when there no embargo second that once there was no embargo, tenant who was in possession of said property since long had right to enter into power of attorney, and third, the power of attorney had a right to enter into sale deed, this sale deed was never questioned though now belatedly questioned after long period and therefore also, this challenge cannot be sustained as there is no substratum even before the Tribunal raised by any of petitioner or his other family members, cause an embargo findings of facts unless they are perverse, cannot be interfered with and I do not find that same are perverse, on contrary, 1 can hasten to say that petitioner had also accepted amount of Rs. 3.5 crores which is still lying with him and had never deposited the same with the Trial Court - While going through the record, it is found that the mutation entries are made in the name of respondents, order cannot be found fault with - Petition dismissed.
K.J. Thaker, J.
1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
A) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Annexure-A) to the extent it gives direction for regularising transactions being four registered sale deed dated 14.10.1999 in favour of the respondents No. 5 to 10 herein with respect to land admeasuring 20 acre and 20 gunthas bearing Revenue Survey No. 707 situated at Vadodara Kasba, District Sub-District Vadodara.
B) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble court be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad to the extent it gives direction for regularising transactions being four registered sale deeds dated 14.10.1999 in favour of the respondents No. 5 to 10 herein with respect to land admeasuring 20 acre and 20 gunthas bearing Revenue Survey No. 707 situated at Vadodara Kasba, District Sub District Vadodara.
C) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition the Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the respondents from taking any steps pursuant to the order dated 28.11.2007 with respect to the land admeasuring 20 acre and 20 gunthas bearing Revenue Survey No. 707 situated at Vadodara Kasba, District Sub District Vadodara.
D) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to maintain status quo with respect to nature, holding and possession of land with respect to the land admeasuring 20 acre and 20 gunthas bearing Revenue Survey No. 707 situated at Vadodara Kasba, District Sub District Vadodara.
2. After the change of roster, it was requested that the matter be treated as part-heard by Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala learned senior counsel, but Ms. Jani learned advocate had her reservation, and therefore, it was requested by the undersigned to Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for doing needful in the matter. Therefore, the office has placed this matter before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for passing necessary orders for placing the matter and Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice vide order dated 14.8.2015 directed the office to place this matter before this Court, and thereafter, the matter was listed before this court. Several adjournments were granted to explore the possibility of a via-media solution/settlement, which failed. The wife of petitioner sought herself to be impleaded in 2015 which was granted. The children through mother also sought impleadment which was also granted. The brothers of petitioner, who were not supporting the petitioner, stated orally supporting through Mr. Malkan learned advocate for change of advocate. They now support the petitioner. This prelude and skeletal facts, which are necessary for this petition, are narrated, as there is SLP pending for compromise decree.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are as under:
3.1 The dispute pertains to land admeasuring acre 20 - 20 gunthas i.e. 8,00,000 sq. ft. bearing Revenue Survey No. 707, Vadodara Kasba, District Sub-District Vadodara, which was owned by Rasiklal Tilakram Jaiswal-father of the petitioner. The Mamlatdar & ALT, Vadodara vide order dated 6.7.1079 in Tenancy Case No. 3467 of 1977 declared Rasiklal Tilakram Jaiswal to be the tenant of the land under sec. 32(O) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. The father of petitioner passed away in 1987. Thereafter, the land was owned by his legal heirs i.e. petitioner and respondents No. 11 to 17 herein. That on 4.3.1991 the petitioner and his family members entered into a banakhat with partners of "Satyanarayan Traders" namely Rameshbhai Chaturbhai Prajapati and Nimeshbhai Ambala
