2020 Supreme(Guj) 397

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M. Trivedi, J.
Bhavnagar Mahanagar Palika Through Municipal Commissioner & Others - Petitioners
Versus
Heirs of Decd. Virbhadrasinhji Krushnakumarsinhji Gohil & Others - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 8792 of 2011
Decided On : 07-05-2020

Point of Law:
It embodies the principle that possession of a property furnishes prima facie proof of ownership of the possessor and casts burden of proof on the party who denies his ownership. The presumption, which is rebut table, is attracted when the possession is prima facie lawful and when the contesting party has no title.

Headnote:

Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Act, Section 9 - Gujarat Land Revenue Code - Section 203 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226/227 - Petition has been filed challenging common order - Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Appeals being filed by respondent - Tribunal has further held in impugned common order that appellants rise to present petition are that one original owner of subject land bearing Survey said land was acquired by then State of Bhavnagar for town development purpose in year - On merger of State of Bhavnagar in Union of India in year an Ordinance called Covenanting States Administration Ordinance along with State of Kathiawar was published in Gazette on - Pursuant to said Covenant, an inventory of immovable properties to be retained by then Maharaja as his private properties was prepared subject land bearing Survey was not included in said Inventory however then Maharaja included subject land along with other lands into his holdings in Agricultural Land Ceiling proceedings initiated Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act - Case has a chequered history of more than years during which period various proceedings were filed by parties and number of orders were passed by various authorities and Tribunal/Court - Held, Court finding recorded by Tribunal relying on judgment of Civil Court Bhavnagar in Civil Suit filed by legal heirs of against petitioner Municipality and legal heirs of then Maharaja is also another glaring example of perverse finding recorded by Tribunal in favor of respondent legal heirs of then Maharaja - Tribunal in impugned order has observed that it has been mentioned in judgment of said Civil Court that respondent has miserably failed to prove his ownership and possession of suit land and decided issues in favor of appellant regarding possession of land in question while ignoring findings on issue which was decided in favor of petitioner Municipality with regard to possession and ownership of land in question - As such Tribunal should not have relied upon said findings recorded in Civil Suit which was dismissed by Civil Court recording findings in favor of defendants only because plaintiffs in said case legal heirs had failed to lead any oral or documentary evidence - Thus finding of Tribunal with regard to occupation and possession of subject land in favor of respondent relying upon said judgment of Civil Court is not only thoroughly misconceived and misdirected but is perverse - Petition allowed (Para 38)

Facts of the Case:

One Bhura Ranchhod was the original owner of the subject land bearing Survey No.234. The said land was acquired by the then State of Bhavnagar, for the town development purpose in the year 1937. On the merger of the State of Bhavnagar in the Union of India in the year 1948, an Ordinance called the Covenating States Administration Ordinance 1948 along with the Appendix-XXIV for the State of Kathiawar (subsequently known as the State of Saurashtra) was published in the Gazette on 8.3.1948. Pursuant to the said Covenant, an inventory of immovable properties to be retained by the then Maharaja Krishnasinhji as his private properties was prepared on 5.11.1951.

Finding of the Court:

Court finding recorded by Tribunal relying on judgment of Civil Court Bhavnagar in Civil Suit filed by legal heirs of against petitioner Municipality and legal heirs of then Maharaja is also another glaring example of perverse finding recorded by Tribunal in favor of respondent legal heirs of then Maharaja - Tribunal in impugned order has observed that it has been mentioned in judgment of said Civil Court that respondent has miserably failed to prove his ownership and possession of suit land and decided issues in favor of appellant regarding possession of land in question while ignoring findings on issue which was decided in favor of petitioner Municipality with regard to possession and ownership of land in question - As such Tribunal should not have relied upon said findings recorded in Civil Suit which was dismissed by Civil Court recording findings in favor of defendants only because plaintiffs in said case legal heirs had failed to lead any oral or documentary evidence - Thus finding of Tribunal with regard to occupation and possession of subject land in favor of respondent relying upon said judgment of Civil Court is not only thoroughly misconceived and misdirected but is perverse.

Result: Petition allowed