Back
2017 Supreme(Guj) 1564
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Tulsibhai Bhagwanbhai Patel & Other – Petitioners
Versus
State of Gujarat & Other – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 11865 of 2017
Decided On : 03-07-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Dhaval M. Barot, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Nisha Thakore, AGP., M/s. Wadiaghandy & Co, Caveator
Headnote:
Constitution of India, Article 227 -Transfer of Property act, Sections 111, 106 -Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated passed by the respondent in Revision Application and the order dated passed by the Collector Revision -Hearing and final disposal of the petition the Court may be pleased to stay the implementation operation and execution of the impugned order dated passed by the respondent in Revision Application and the impugned order dated passed by the Collector in Revision Case in the interest of justice -Original owner entered into a lease agreement of years with the respondent herein -Transaction led to mutation of entry dated Later on the original owners sold the very parcels of land to the applicants herein in the year by a registered sale-deed and in this regard also an entry came to be mutated in the record of rights –Held, Civil Court about cancellation of lease deed is proper -Because entry is of lease thereafter entry is entered -That lease agreement does not come to an end on death of executants -For cancellation of lease proceedings under section and of the Transfer of Property act are to be undertaken -That issue is required to be considered -That entry of lease deed has been challenged after long time and even long time after execution of sale deed signature of applicant is there in the lease deed which fact is also required to be consider -Appreciation of the submissions of the parties and order of Collector and considering the record available the submissions of the applicant cannot be accepted -Therefore following order is passed in the revision application of the applicant -Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record I am of the view that no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the authorities in passing the impugned orders -Indisputably the entry no. came to be mutated on June -Document is on record said entry also came to be certified -Applicants purchased the land in the year -Lease is in existence as on date -Application fails and is hereby rejected.
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
“(A) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 10.4.2017 (Ann-A) passed by the respondent no. 1 in Revision Application No. 150/2016 and the order dated 1.8.2016 passed by the Collector, Valsad in Revision Case No. 96/2015, in the interest of justice;
(B) That pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order dated 10.4.2017 (Ann-A) passed by the respondent no. 1 in Revision Application No. 150/2016 and the impugned order dated 1.8.2016 passed by the Collector, Valsad in Revision Case No. 96/2015, in the interest of justice;
(C) For Costs;
(D) For such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper.”
2. The dispute pertains to a land bearing Old Survey nos. 24/3, 70/1.p and 23/2 situated at Mouje Manekpur, Taluka Umargam, District Valsad. The original owner of these parcels of land was one Shri. Hosang Ardesar Karbhari. The original owner entered into a lease agreement of 40 years with the respondent no. 3 herein. This transaction led to mutation of entry no. 1115 dated 1st June 1990. Later on, the original owners sold the very parcels of land to the applicants herein in the year 2005 by a registered sale-deed and in this regard also an entry came to be mutated in the record of rights. The applicants, being the purchasers of the land in question, disputed the entry no. 1115 mutated on 1st June 1990 by filing an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Pardi. The Deputy Collector, Pardi, by his order dated 30th March 2015, allowed the appeal and ordered deletion of the entry as regards the lease-deed mutated in the record of rights. Being dissatisfied, the respondent no. 3 herein went before the Collector by filing a revision application no. 96 of 2015. The Collector, by his order dated 1st August 2016, allowed the revision application and quashed and set-aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector. Being dissatisfied, the respondent went before the SSRD. The SSRD rejected the revision application filed by the applicants, thereby affirming the order passed by the Collector. While rejecting the revision application, the SSRD observed as under:
(The free English translation of the same reads thus:)
“Upon considering the aforesaid facts and order of the Collector as well as available record, it appears that land bearing Revenue Survey No. 24/3, R.S No 70/1 paiki, R.S No. 23/2 of Mouje: Manekpur, Taluka Umargam, was belonging to Hosang Ardesar and R.S no. 70/1 paiki land was running in the name of Hosang Ardesar. That out of the aforesaid lands, the owner of land bearing R.S No. 24/3, R.S No. 70/1 paiki, R.S No. 23/2 had entered into registered lease agreement dt. 29.01.1990 in favour of Kum. Gauri Dixit and Nicolas Masid, for growing fruit bearing trees and to collect fruits and for cattle rearing for term period of 40 years on condition of payment of Rs. 3500/- annual rent. That on basis of the same, mutation entry no. 1115, dt. 01.06.1990 was entered in the revenue record. Also the owner of R.S no. 70/1 paiki namely Shri. Godrej Ardesar Karbhari, had also executed one registered lease agreement dt. 11.04.1990 in favour of Smt. Yashodhara Dalmiya, residing at Mumbai along with well, plants, pipeline, bullock cart, engine, electric motor, telephone and other items for period of 30 years on condition of payment of annual rent of Rs. 3500/-. That on basis of same mutation entry no. 1125, dt. 24.10.1990 was entered in the Revenue record. That the effect of the lease entries in the 7/12 extract was made in the second round. That opponent no. 1 and 2 had preferred appeal before the Deputy Collector, Pardi wherein as per entry no. 1233 dt 01.01.1997 and entry no. 1347, dt.
