Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.P. THAKER, J.
Thakor Taraben W/o Ganeshji Ravaji & 2 others – Appellants
Versus
State Of Gujarat & 4 Others – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 15704 of 2018
Decided on : 05-04-2022
Jurisdiction - Land Dispute - Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 - [LAND DISPUTE] - [Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879] - The court discussed the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 and emphasized that the exercise of revisional power should be within a reasonable period of time. It also highlighted that the nature of land cannot be said to be changed merely on execution of a Sale Deed when the transaction itself has been cancelled from the inception. The court quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondent-SSRD and District Collector.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute pertains to a land bearing Revenue Survey no. 30/1, which was originally an Inami land. The petitioners, who are the heirs of the original grantee, are in possession of the land. The respondent-District Collector initiated proceedings after a delay of almost 37 years, alleging a breach of conditions due to a sale deed executed without obtaining permission from the competent authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no breach of conditions and no actual transfer of possession. It also noted that the possession of the land had never changed hands and the original occupier and their heirs were in occupation of the land. The court held that the exercise of revisional power should be within a reasonable period of time and that the suo motu action initiated after almost 37 years could not be sustained in the eyes of the law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged breach of conditions due to a sale deed executed without obtaining permission from the competent authority, the possession of the land, and the validity of the suo motu action initiated after a long delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the exercise of revisional power should be within a reasonable period of time and that the nature of land cannot be said to be changed merely on execution of a Sale Deed when the transaction itself has been cancelled from the inception.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondent-SSRD and District Collector.
ORDER :
1. By filing this petition, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside order dated 23.3/2.4.2018 passed by respondent-SSRD in Revision Application No.MVV/JMN/BNS/11 of 2017 as well as order dated 8.3.2017 passed by respondent- District Collector in suo-motu proceeding being B/Jamin-4/Suomotu/ Revision Case No.7 of 2015.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under:
2.1 It is stated that the dispute pertains to the land bearing Revenue Survey no. 30/1, admeasuring 01-58-6 Haq-RASq. mts. at mouje-Soyla, Tal.Deesa, Dist. Banaskantha (herein after referred to as ‘land in question’). It is also stated that the land in question was originally an Inami land and vide entry no. 36 name of Jadiben and Ravjibhai - the grandfather of the petitioners was mutated in the Revenue Record. It is further stated that thereafter one entry no. 126 dated 18.07.1976 was mutated in the Revenue Record with regard to the sale of land in question to Brahman Lachiram Ramji. It is further submitted that the said entry no. 126 was not certified and the said sale was never given effect by the parties.
2.2 It is further stated that Ravjibhai passed away on 31.05.1999 and heir ship entry no. 239 dated 19.07.1995 was mutated. It is further submitted that thereafter vide entry no. 252, dated 06.02.1996 the entry of relinguishment of the right was made. It is also stated that the land in question is throughout in possession of the petitioners and they are personally cultivating the same. It is further submitted that sale deed dated 14.05.1976 was executed by Brahman Lachiram Ramji, without paying any consideration to the grandfather of the petitioners and therefore the possession was never given to the so called purchaser. It is further stated that father of the petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit no. 101 of 2011 challenging the aforesaid sale deed. It is stated that heirs of Brahman Lachiram Ramji accepted the contentions of the plaint and therefore vide order dated 19.11.2011 the suit of the father of the petitioners was decreed and so called sale deed dated 14.04.1976 was quashed.
2.3 It is stated that despite the fact that the sale deed is quashed and set aside and despite the fact that the petitioners, who are the heirs of original grantee, are in possession of the land in question, the respondent-District Collector initiated Sharat Bhang Case No. 1 of 2012 on the ground that in the year 1976 the same was sold without obtaining permission from the competent authority. It is stated that the initiation of the Sharat Bhang proceedings are highly belated as the same are initiated after delay of almost 37 years, It is further stated that suo motu proceedings after such a gross and inordinate delay could not have been initiated. More particularly, when the sale deed was never given effect by the parties and possession was never transferred in favor of any other person. It is further stated that vide order dated 17.05.2013 the Deputy Collector found breach of condition and ordered forfeiture of land in question with State Government.
2.4 It is stated that aforesaid order was challenged by preferring appeal case no. 30 of 2013. It is further stated that vide order dated 04.07.2014 the application was partly allowed and the case was remanded back to the Deputy Collector to consider it afresh after hearing all the affected parties and after considering the Government resolution.
2.5 It is further stated that, thereafter, the remand case was numbered as Sharat Bhang Remand Case No. 11 of 2014. It is further stated that vide order dated 17.04.2015, the learned Deputy Collector found that the petitioners are possession of the and in question and since the sale deed is quashed and set aside by the competent civil court, there is no breach of condition and ordered withdrawal of the said notice.
2.6 It is stated that one Civil Misc. Appeal no. 46 of 2015 is filed by the State Government challenging the judgment and decree passed
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
