SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Guj) 756

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Abhilasha Kumari, J.
Mustufakhan R. Pathan and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 3406 of 1992
Decided On : 27-04-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :I.H. Syed for Y.H. Motiramani, Advocate
For the Respondents: Asmita Patel, Asst. Government Pleader

IMPORTANT POINT
Mutation of entries or their cancellation, would not decide legal rights of parties flowing from statute.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 and 227 - Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 - Sections 106 & 152 - Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Section 211 - Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 43(1AA) & 63A ––Case of petitioners that they are auction purchasers who have purchased property after participating in auction and making highest bid – There was no grievance from respondents Nos. 2 to 5 during entire proceedings and even thereafter, respondents Nos. 2 to 5, who were present during auction proceedings, did not raise any objection –They accepted amount being balance after making payment of outstanding dues to respondents Nos. 7 and 8 Cooperative Societies –Petitioners received notice regarding hearing of Revision Application before respondent No. 1, along with copy of application made by respondents Nos. 2 to 5, asking them to appear –Petitioners appeared before respondent No. 1 and pointed out that they held status of agriculturists even prior to auction and requested for time to produce documents in support of this assertion –They obtained papers of relevant revenue record and produced documents before respondent No. 1, showing that they were agriculturists when auction took place –Grievance of petitioners is that, without taking said documents into consideration or even dealing with them, respondent No. 1 set aside order passed by Special Recovery Officer confirming sale of the land in favour of the applicants –By the order respondent No. 1 held that petitioners were not agriculturists and, hence, could not have participated in auction –Held, Court is of considered view that order passed by respondent No. 1 deserves to be quashed and set aside –It is quashed and set aside –Land in question shall revert back to petitioners –State Government shall take necessary steps in this regard as expeditiously as possible –Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Abhilasha Kumari, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Articles-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 07.08.1991/11.10.1991, passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, (Respondent No. 1), in Revision Application No. SSRD/AMD-REV-4-91, in exercise of power under Section-211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 ("the Code", for short), whereby the order dated 21.12.1984, passed by the Special Recovery Officer, has been set aside.

2. A brief factual background of the case would be necessary in order to understand the issues involved in the petition.

2.1 Land bearing Block/Survey No. 41, admeasuring 36-Acres 25-Gunthas, situated at village Miroli, Taluka Dascroi, District Ahmedabad (the land in question) belonged to respondents Nos. 2 and 5, who were heavily indebted to respondents Nos. 7 and 8-Cooperative Societies. Proceedings were initiated against respondents Nos. 2 to 5 under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 ("the Act", for short), decrees were passed and certificates were issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section-106of the Act, in the years 1979 and 1980. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 failed to make the payments as required by the certificates, therefore, proceedings for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 90,000/- were initiated. Notice under Section-152 of the Code was issued to respondents Nos. 2 to 5. As the said respondents did not make the payment of the outstanding dues, the Special Recovery Officer issued a proclamation under the Code on 20.10.1984, regarding the public auction of the land in question, for the recovery of Rs. 90,000/-, as arrears of land revenue, by selling the said land. After following the due procedure and formalities, the auction of the land in question was held on 21.11.1984. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were present at the auction. The petitioners made the highest bid, at Rs. 1,01,786/-, which was duly accepted. The petitioners paid the entire amount of Rs. 1,01,786/-, out of which an amount of Rs. 91,235.50ps. was paid to respondents Nos. 7 and 8-Cooperative Societies and the remaining amount of Rs. 10,550/- was paid to respondents Nos. 2 to 5 by the Special Recovery Officer. The said respondents accepted the amount. On 21.12.1984, the order of the confirmation of the sale of the land was passed by the Special Recovery Officer. The possession of the land was handed over to the petitioners. The said order is to be found at Annexure-A to the petition. The possession receipt dated 21.12.1984, is also on record at Annexure-B.

2.2 It appears that respondents Nos. 2 to 5 instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 773/1985 against the petitioners, praying for the protection of their possession over the land in question. The petitioners also filed Regular Civil Suit No. 642/1986, with similar prayers. The record reveals that this Court made an attempt to find out the status of the two civil suits. The record of Regular Civil Suit No. 642/1986 filed by the petitioners is not traceable and neither could learned counsel for the petitioners or respondents throw any light on this aspect. As for Regular Civil Suit No. 773/1985, the same was withdrawn after the passing of the impugned order.

2.3 It is the case of the petitioners that they are auction purchasers who have purchased the property after participating in the auction and making the highest bid. There was no grievance from respondents Nos. 2 to 5 during the entire proceedings and even thereafter, respondents Nos. 2 to 5, who were present during the auction proceedings, did not raise any objection. In fact, they accepted the amount of Rs. 10,550/-, being the balance after making the payment of the outstanding dues to respondents Nos. 7 and 8-Cooperative Societies. The petitioners assert that no grievance was raised from any quarter from 1984 to 1991. All of a sudden, the petitioners received a notice regarding the hearing of a Revision Applicat





























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top