Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Guj) 145

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.
Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Kasala – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat Through Special Secretary (Appeals) & others – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 3351 of 2013 With R/Special Civil Application No. 3537 of 2013 With R/Special Civil Application No. 3540 of 2013
Decided on : 15-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
MR PREMAL R JOSHI, MRS KIRAN P JOSHI, MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA

Point of Law : Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with a finding within the jurisdiction of inferior tribunal except where the findings are perverse and not based on any material evidence or resulting in manifest injustice.

Headnote:
Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951 - Gujarat Land Rules, 1972 - Rule 108(5) - Gujarat Land Revenue Code - Section 204 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Land Issue - Registered sale-deed - Name Entry in revenue record - Transaction of sale of land in question - In Special Civil Application issue pertains to entry no.173, which came to be mutated in revenue record apropos sale deed executed in favour of father of petitioner - Said entry was not certified and was cancelled by an order passed by Mamlatdar, Umrala - Said order was challenged before Collector, Bhavnagar in year 1998, i.e. after a period of 38 years, and appeal came to be rejected vide order unsuccessfully challenged before Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) - Petitioner's case that proceedings came to his knowledge only when he was in receipt of the notice dated 16.10.1998 and therefore, the limitation should start from the year 1998 and not from years 1961 or 1984 or 1986 as the case may be.
Finding of the Court: There is no substance in such contention raised by learned advocate for petitioner that limitation would start from year 1998 and appeals having been filed in year 1999, were within the limitation. Besides, one more aspect needs to be highlighted and not disputed by the petitioner, that is Daban Case registered against petitioner and his brother, which culminated into order - Said order was challenged in appeal before Deputy Collector, who vide order rejected appeal followed by mutation of entry in Village Form No.VI. Neither order passed by the Deputy Collector, Palitana nor entry No.1345 have been challenged by petitioner before the higher forum, said proceedings, have also attained finality - Except fact that, proceedings came to knowledge of petitioner only in year 1998, no other reasons are forthcoming on record to suggest that authorities below have committed any error of not considering facts relevant for purpose of deciding the appeals and revisions - Therefore, it cannot be said that Collector, Bhavnagar in first instance and Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in second, committed any error in dismissing appeals and/or revisions of petitioner, inter alia, on ground of same having been filed after a delay of 38 years, 15 years and 13 years, respectively.
Result: Petitions do not deserve to be entertained and are hereby dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. The issues involved in all the petitions are interconnected, overlapping and outcome of one writ petition, will have a bearing on the others. Therefore, all the writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common CAV judgment.

2. Though facts are common; challenge in all the three writ petitions varies, and gist in sequential order of events, is set out hereunder for ease of reference

i. In Special Civil Application No.3537 of 2013, the issue pertains to the entry no.173, which came to be mutated in the revenue record apropos the sale deed dated 23.2.1959 executed in favour of the father of the petitioner. The said entry was not certified and was cancelled by an order dated 19.2.1961 passed by the Mamlatdar, Umrala. The said order was challenged before the Collector, Bhavnagar in the year 1998, i.e. after a period of 38 years, and the appeal came to be rejected vide order dated 13.10.2000, unsuccessfully challenged before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals).

ii. In Special Civil Application No.3540 of 2013, the issue pertains to the order dated 8.10.1984 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palitana cancelling the transaction of sale in favour of the father of the petitioner, the same being without the prior permission of the authorities and in breach of the conditions of the grant. The said order was challenged before the Collector, Bhavnagar, i.e. after a period of 15 years, who vide order dated 13.10.2000 dismissed the appeal and unsuccessfully challenged before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals).

iii. In Special Civil Application No.3351 of 2013, the issue pertains to entry no.959, which was mutated in the revenue record giving effect to the order dated 8.10.1984 and certified by the Mamlatdar, Umrala vide order dated 8.2.1986. The order dated 8.2.1986 passed by the Mamlatdar, Umrala was challenged before the Collector, Bhavnagar after a period of 13 years and the appeal came to be rejected vide order dated 13.10.2000, which was unsuccessfully challenged before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals).

3. The facts as is discernible from the petition, are to the effect that the land situated at village Samadhiyala, Taluka Umrala was running in the name of one Shri Bavaji Ishwardas Jankidas. According to the petitioner, after enactment of Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1951') the Special Mamlatdar, Palitana issued a Hakpatrak Certificate dated 6.3.1953 in favour of Shri Bavaji Ishwardas Jankidas in connection with the land bearing survey no.135, admeasuring 3 acres, 08 gunthas (hereinafter referred to as ‘the land in question’) and said transfer was entered in the revenue record vide entry no.124. Vide registered sale-deed dated 23.2.1959, the father of the petitioner purchased the land in question by paying full consideration towards the same. Pursuant to which, an entry no.173 was mutated in the revenue record, however, the same was not certified and came to be rejected vide order dated 9.12.1961 passed by the Mamlatdar, Umrala.

3.1 The said order dated 9.12.1961 of the Mamlatdar, Umrala was challenged by the petitioner before the Collector under Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1972') and Section 204 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). The Collector, Bhavnagar, vide order dated 13.10.2000, dismissed the appeal, inter alia, on the ground that the appeal has been filed almost after a period of 38 years, which is a gross delay; without any reasonable explanation for condoning the delay. Thereby, the order dated 9.12.1961 of the Mamlatdar, Umrala stood confirmed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner under Rule 108(6A) of the Rules of 1972 preferred a revision application before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), who vide order dated 1.2/3/2012 rejected the revision and confirmed the order dated 13.10.2000

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Guj) 145

Point of Law : Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with a finding within the jurisdiction of inferior tribunal except where the findings are perverse and not based on any material evidence or resulting in manifest injustice.

Cases Referred (2)