Back
2019 Supreme(Guj) 353
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
Ghanchi Mohammad Husain Akbarbhai - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Others - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 10759 of 2011 With Civil Application (For Breach Of Order) No. 1 of 2018
Decided On : 18-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. S.I. Nanavati, LD. Sr. Counsel with Ms Anuja S Nanavati
For the Respondents:Mr. Mihir joshi, LD. Sr. Counsel, Mr. Kamal Trivedi, advocate general
Headnote:
Evidence Act, section 93, Bombay Land Revenue Code, Section 211 -37(2), 10, sections 8, 8A, 9, 10,12 -Sub-section(4),9 -Land Revenue Tribunal Act, Section 9 -Section 204 of the Code r/w -12, 10, 9, 9, 10, 37(2) -9(4), 6, 56, 19, 11 -Be pleased to issue writ or certiorari or any other writ order of direction declaring the purported exercise of the Sue-Motu revisional powers vide notice dated to have vitiated from the very inception on account of attendant circumstances and consequent order passed by the Collector in Revision Case and further order dated -Pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to quash and set aside the Order dated passed by Respondent Collector granting the land in question in favour of Respondent and further Order dated passed by SSRD Revenue Department State of confirming the order dated which are at Annexure –Held, suit against order made in inquiry under Section in Civil Court after one year Civil Court will set aside the suit -In case of suit having filed within time limit period for filing appeal shall be Authorised Officer should intimate the decision under Section in proper manner failing which Civil Court will admit the suit and in that case -Government will be put to loss -Proper vigilance should be kept to see that no default would remain during inquiry made under Section keeping in view the law/rules/resolutions -I am convinced that the issue needs to be reexamined keeping in mind the aforesaid discussion -As there is a Division Bench decision of this Court, sitting as a Single Judge I cannot say that let the issue be referred to and decided by a Full Bench -The Registry is directed to place this order before the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice for the purpose of constituting an appropriate Bench to look into the issue -Ordered Accordingly.
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs;
“(A) Be pleased to admit this petition;
(B) Be pleased to issue writ or certiorari or any other writ, order of direction, declaring the purported exercise of the Sue-Motu revisional powers u/s.211 vide notice dated 19.01.1988 to have vitiated from the very inception on account of attendant circumstances and consequent order passed by the Collector, Surendranagar in Revision Case No.4/1997-1998 and further order dated 24.06.2011 passed by the Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.T.E.N/A.A./26/1998 be quashed and set aside in view of peculiar facts of the present case.
(BB) Be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the Order dated 16.05.1998 passed by Respondent No.3 Collector, Surendranagar granting the land in question in favour of Respondent No.2 and further Order dated 29.05.1998 passed by SSRD, Revenue Department, State of Gujarat confirming the order dated 16.05.1998 which are at Annexure-”AA” (Colly).,
(C ) Be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Collector, Surendranagar in Revision Case No.4/1997-1998 and further order dated 24.06.2011 passed by the Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.T.E.N./A.A./26/1998.
(D) Be further pleased to call for the record and proceedings of the Hakka Chokshi Case No.03/1996-1999 from the Dy. Collector, Dhrangadhra as well as the entire record of the Revision Case No.04/1997-1998 from the office of Collector, Surendranagar for the purpose of examining the propriety of purported exercise of Sue- Motu revisional powers, in the larger interest of justice.
(E) Pending admission and final hearing be pleased to stay the operation, exercise and implementation of the order passed by the Collector, Surendranagar in Revision Case No.4/1997-1998 and further order dated 24.06.2011 passed by the Revenue Tribunal to Revision Application No.T.E.N./A.A./26/1998, till the final decision of this petition.
(F) Be pleased to pass any other and further order which may be deemed fit in view peculiar facts of the present case.”
2. The case of the writ applicant, in his own words, as pleaded in his writ application, is as under:
4.1 That the petitioner’s forefather Bhaiji Gaga, was granted .land at the Sim of Village Halvad. Admeasuring 43 Vighas by the Old Princely State of Dhangadhra in the year 1906 vide Lekh No. 141, which was executed in favour of Bhaiji Gaga on 11/07/1906 and said parcel of land was entered in the Account No. 113 of Bhaiji Gaga.
4.2 That One Koli Jasa Hari was given land by the then Princely State of Dhrangadhra vide Lekh No. 136 and thereby a parcel of land admeasuring 16 Vighas was granted vide Lekh Document Dated 11-06-1923 and it is very relevant to point out that the State has been trying to canvass that “It is quite possible that on nonfulfillment of conditions, the State may have taken back the land given to forefather of petitioner vide Lekh No.141”.
4.3 That the said portion in the inverted comas has been taken from para 10 of the Affidavit in reply Dated 12th March, 2010 filed by Deputy, Shri Y.P. Joshi in Special Civil Application No. 19/2009 preferred by the petitioner. It is also further sought to be suggested that due to such alleged breach of condition, the same land may have been taken back and re-granted to Koli Jasa Hari vide Lekh No. 136, which is executed on 11-06-1923. It is really shocking that such an assumption is the only thing that Government has but to the contrary, the said Lekh No. 136 does not give out any such facts nor the said party has ever made any claim with regard to the land in question and the Government has also further stated that since the forefather of the petitioner went to Pakistan, the Original Lekh of 1906 was revoked and land was re-granted vide Lekh No. 136 in the year 1923 but such a version is palpably
