2020 Supreme(Guj) 462

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. Supehia, J.
Deceased Ratilal Maganlal Patel - Petitioner
Versus
District Collector, Surat & Others - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 13989 of 2016
Decided On : 19-02-2020

Point of Law:
Taking the situation in either way, at the most, it can be said that a contention, which ought to have been taken in appeal or in revision or in writ jurisdiction has not been taken and as per the principles of constructive res judicata, the contention, which ought to have been taken and if not taken is deemed to have been concluded. It is hardly required to be stated that the principles of constructive res judicata are read in order to give sanctity to the decision of the competent forum or the Court, as the case may be.

Headnote:

Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 - Section 21 - Petition has been filed seeking following prayers may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other writ order or direction quashing and setting aside impugned order - Respondent and further pleased to direct authorities to restore Revenue Entry - State of Gujarat challenged above orders before Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by way of Revision Application which was allowed vide order and matter was remanded to Deputy Collector to consider entire case afresh in accordance with law - Being date on which it was notified in official Gazette - In Ceiling Act holder had to furnish particulars of land to deceased petitioner had therefore furnished details about lands held by him as prescribed in Form provided Rule - Held, in exercise of powers Ceiling Act declared that deceased was entitled to hold land other than Block admeasuring Acre Gunthas as aforesaid parcel of land bearing Block paiki was declared as surplus - On basis of order Mutation Entry was entered on - Court in aforenoted proceedings has threadbare examined all issues with regard to all survey numbers - Petitioners have miserably failed in establishing their case - Thus is not open for petitioners to challenge action in piecemeal manner when in earlier round of litigation similar issue has been decided by this Court and confirmed by Supreme Court with regard to lands in question - Court decision is over and carried up to highest Court of land cannot be heard to say that something was missed may be by mistake or otherwise and it be considered again - If contention of appellant is considered and entertained it would run counter to settled principles of constructive res judicator - In our Single Judge has also found that appellant cannot be permitted to raise contention and court are in agreement with view taken by Judge - Petition dismissed (Paras8 and 12)

Facts of the Case:

Deceased - Ratilal Maganlal Patel was the owner of several parcels of land. It appears that the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 ("the Ceiling Act") came into effect from 10.08.1960, being the date on which it was notified in the official Gazette. In view of Section 10 of the Ceiling Act, the holder had to furnish particulars of land to the Mamlatdar. The deceased petitioner had, therefore, furnished the details about the lands held by him as prescribed in Form No.2, provided under Rule 6 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Rules, 1961.

Finding of the Court:

In exercise of powers Ceiling Act declared that deceased was entitled to hold land other than Block admeasuring Acre Gunthas as aforesaid parcel of land bearing Block paiki was declared as surplus - On basis of order Mutation Entry was entered on - Court in aforenoted proceedings has threadbare examined all issues with regard to all survey numbers - Petitioners have miserably failed in establishing their case - Thus is not open for petitioners to challenge action in piecemeal manner when in earlier round of litigation similar issue has been decided by this Court and confirmed by Supreme Court with regard to lands in question - Court decision is over and carried up to highest Court of land cannot be heard to say that something was missed may be by mistake or otherwise and it be considered again - If contention of appellant is considered and entertained it would run counter to settled principles of constructive res judicator - In our Single Judge has also found that appellant cannot be permitted to raise contention and court are in agreement with view taken by Judge.

Result: Petition dismissed