Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 968
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.M. Chhaya, J.
Maganbhai Karsanbhai Patel and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 8616 of 2000
Decided On : 20-06-2016
For the Appellant :Jitendra M. Patel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Shirish Gohil, A.G.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Collector does not have jurisdiction to entertain the revision under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code against an order passed by the authority under Section 37(2) of the Code.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Land Dispute - Bombay Land Revenue Code - Section 37(2)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal confirming the order of the Collector, Vadodara in a land dispute case. The petitioner's father purchased the land, and disputes arose regarding its ownership. The City Survey Officer and the Collector issued conflicting orders regarding the ownership of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Collector did not have jurisdiction to entertain the revision under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code against an order passed by the authority under Section 37(2) of the Code. The court held that the Collector's exercise of power under Section 211 was without jurisdiction, and the Tribunal had erred in remanding the proceedings back to the Collector.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, the authority of the City Survey Officer under Section 37(2) of the Code, and the legality of the orders passed by the Collector and the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Division Bench's judgment, which held that the Collector does not possess jurisdiction to entertain the revision under Section 211 of the Code against an order passed by the authority under Section 37(2) of the Code. The court also considered the provisions of Section 9 of the Act read with Schedule-I, which indicated that an appeal against the order under Section 37(2) would lie before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the orders passed by the Tribunal and the Collector, Vadodara.
R.M. Chhaya, J.
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.04.2000 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) in Appeal No. TEN/A.A. 48 of 1998 confirming the order dated 23.05.1985 passed by Collector, Vadodara.
2. The following facts emerge from the record of the petition:-
2.1. That the father of the petitioner viz. Deceased Maganbhai Karsanbhai Patel purchased the land in question bearing Revenue Survey No. 13, admeasuring 3 Acres and 25 Gunthas, situated at village Manjalpur, Taluka and District Vadodara, by registered Sale-Deed being Sr. No. 1473 dated 15.07.1958 from its original owner viz. Shivajirao Apajirao More and father of the petitioner remained in possession of the land in question and thereafter, the petitioner is in possession of the same.
2.2 Record further indicates that even though no one raised any dispute about the title of the land in question and even though no claim was made by anybody, City Survey Officer, Vadodara initiated inquiry under Section 37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for short). As averred in the petition, the petitioner replied to the same and also produced necessary documentary evidence before the City Survey Officer. It is also averred that, in fact, the petitioner was also examined by the City Survey Officer. The said inquiry culminated into the order dated 28.04.1978, whereby the City Survey Officer held that the land bearing Sheet No. 30, Chalta No. 590 belongs to the petitioner's father deceased Maganbhai Karsanbhai Patel and similarly, property bearing Chalta No. 537 belongs to the Government land.
2.3 Record further indicates that being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector, who vide order dated 25.02.1980 was pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 28.04.1978 passed by the City Survey Officer and remanded the proceedings back to City Survey Officer for its rehearing after giving opportunity to the parties concerned.
2.4 Pursuant to the order passed by the Deputy Collector, the City Survey Officer heard the petitioner and vide order dated 15.10.1981 was pleased to hold that both the properties namely Sheet No. 30, Chalta No. 590 as well as Chalta No. 537 belong to the father of the petitioner-deceased Maganbhai Karsanbhai Patel.
2.5 The Collector, Vadodara in purported exercise of power under Section 211 of the Code issued a show-cause notice dated 11.10.1982 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the order passed by the City Survey Officer dated 15.10.1981 be not quashed and set aside and ultimately, vide order dated 11.10.1983, the Collector quashed the said order and again remanded the proceedings to the City Survey Officer. The City Survey Officer after due inquiry again vide order dated 27.01.1984 held that the properties in question are of the ownership of the father of the petitioner.
2.6 Again the said order dated 27.01.1984 was taken into suo motu revision under Section 211 of the Code and vide order dated 23.05.1985, the Collector quashed and set aside the order dated 27.01.1984 and held that both the properties belong to the State Government.
2.7 Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Collector, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 1490 of 1986 before this Hon'ble Court, which came to be disposed of on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 9 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) vide order dated 21.08.1998.
2.8 Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which came to be registered as Appeal No. TEN/A.A-89 of 1998, wherein the petitioner raised various contentions and the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Collector vide order dated 20.04.2000. Being aggrieved
