SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Guj) 389

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.P. THAKER, J.
RAJOO COTTEX LTD. – Petitioner
Versus
SPECIAL SECRETARY (APPEALS) REVENUE DEPARTMENT – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 19547 of 2017
Decided On : 08-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: VIMAL A. PUROHIT.
For the Respondent: NIKUNJ KANARA.

Limited powers of revenue authorities in RTS proceedings and their inability to decide the validity of a transaction based on provisions of another enactment.

Headnote:

Mutation Entry - Agricultural Land - Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 (Section 54) - The court discussed the legality of the cancellation of Mutation Entry Nos. 1680 and 1681 under the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949. It highlighted the limited powers of revenue authorities in RTS proceedings and emphasized that they cannot decide the validity of a transaction based on provisions of another enactment. The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the restoration of the Mutation Entry Nos. 1680 and 1681.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner Company purchased agricultural land and obtained NA permission for industrial use. The District Collector initiated suo-motu proceedings against Mutation entries, alleging a breach of Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the nature of the land had already been changed to non-agricultural for industrial purpose, and the Collector's actions were not in line with the law. It also noted the delay in initiating proceedings and the limited powers of revenue authorities in RTS proceedings.

Issues: Validity of cancellation of Mutation entries, breach of Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949, and the jurisdiction of revenue authorities in RTS proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited powers of revenue authorities in RTS proceedings and their inability to decide the validity of a transaction based on provisions of another enactment. It also considered the delay in initiating proceedings and the nature of the land being changed to non-agricultural for industrial purpose.

Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed, and the Mutation Entry Nos. 1680 and 1681 were directed to be restored.

ORDER :

1. By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has, inter-alia, challenged the order dated 10.3.2011 dispatched on 17.3.2011 passed by the learned Special Secretary Revenue Department in Revision Application No. MVV/JMN/JND/103/1999 whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected and the order dated 29.7.1999 passed by the District Collector, Junagadh whereby the Mutation entry Nos. 1680 and 1681 pertaining to the registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioner Company came to be cancelled under suo-motu proceedings.

2. The brief facts as relevant for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:

2.1 The petitioner Company purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No. 122 Paiki, admeasuring Are 6 and 17 gunthas situated at Village-Sanosara, Taluka Manavadar, District Junagadh from Ravjibhai Shamjibhai Adesara vide registered sale-deed bearing No. 84 dated 24.1.1996 and the same was mutated by way of Mutation entry No. 1680 dated 25.1.1996 and was certified on 26.2.1996.

2.2 The petitioner purchased the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 122 Paiki, admeasuring 5 Are and 20 gunthas situated at the same village from Smt. Sardaben Thobhanbhai Adesara vide registered sale-deed bearing No. 83 dated 24.1.1996 and the same was mutated by way of Mutation Entry No. 1681 on 25.1.1996 and the same was certified on 26.2.1996. Thereafter, the Taluka Development Officer vide its order dated 7/10.6.1996 allowed the application of the petitioner for conversion of the land in question from Agricultural purpose to Non-Agricultural purpose i.e. industrial purpose.

2.3 Thereafter, vide communication dated 22.11.1988, the District Collector requested the learned SSRD to initiate suo-motu proceedings against the Non-Agricultural order and accordingly show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and ultimately vide order dated 11.3.1999, the learned SSRD withdrew the said show-cause notice.

2.4 Thereafter, the District Collector initiated suo-motu proceedings against Mutation entry No. 1680 and 1681 for the breach of Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and vide its impugned order, cancelled both the entries which were in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred the aforesaid Revision Application before the learned SSRD, which came to be rejected.

3. Heard Mr. Vimal Purohit, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP for the respondent State. Perused the material placed on record.

4. Mr. Vimal Purohit, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as per the revenue records, the land was purchased by the Director of the Company, who is an agriculturist. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already got necessary NA permission from the competent authority for the use of the said land for industrial purpose and construction was made thereof. He has submitted taht the District Collector had requested the learned SSRD for cancellation of the NA permission upn which necessary Notice was issued to the petitioner. He has submitted that after hearing both the sides, the learned SSRD has ultimately withdrawn the show-cause notice challenging the NA permission granted to the petitioner. He has submitted that the NA permsision granted by the competent authority for conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose i.e. industrial purpose has been confirmed by the Government itself. He has submitted that when NA permission is already been granted and construction has been carried out by the petitioner over the land, the Collector has no authority to initiate any proceedings under the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance. He has also submitted that even under the provisions of Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top