Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
Hitesh Ratanlal Jain (Partner Of Rajvi Developers) – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 3149 of 2023
Decided on : 27-02-2023
.
Jurisdiction - Land Revenue Code - [Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India] - [Sections 205 and 206 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879] - The court dismissed the petitioners' plea for a writ of certiorari and prohibition against the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, challenging the condonation of delay in an appeal. The court found that an alternative efficacious remedy was available to challenge the impugned order and that the sale-deed in question, executed in the name of a deceased person, was fraudulent and prima facie liable to be cancelled. The court held that the delay in filing the appeal would not affect a fraudulent transaction, which is void ab initio and a nullity. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed to be bona fide purchasers of a land, challenging the condonation of delay in an appeal by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, regarding a mutation entry based on a sale-deed executed in the name of a deceased person.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that an alternative efficacious remedy was available to challenge the impugned order and that the sale-deed in question was fraudulent and prima facie liable to be cancelled.
Issues: The main issue was the condonation of delay in the appeal challenging the mutation entry based on a fraudulent sale-deed executed in the name of a deceased person.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in filing the appeal would not affect a fraudulent transaction, which is void ab initio and a nullity.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as it was devoid of any merit.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vimal A. Purohit for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent No.1.
2. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari quashing and setting aside order dated 11.1.2023 passed by the Ld. City Deputy Collector, (West), Ahmedabad in case No. RTS/ Appeal/Case No.152/2021 (Annexure A);
(D) Pending hearing and Final Disposal of this Special Civil Application, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further proceedings of case no. RTS/ Appeal/Case No. 152/2021 (Annexure A) pending before respondent no.2 i.e. Ld. City Deputy Collector (West), Ahmedabad ;
(E) Any other and further relief that may deem fit by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.”
3.1. The brief facts of the case are that according to the petitioners, they are bona fide purchaser of the land (in question) by the registered sale deed executed in the year 2017.
3.2. The land bearing Survey No.632/1-2 paiki admeasuring 2511.5 sq.mtrs. situated at village-Vadaj, Taluka-Sabarmati, District-Ahmedabad was originally owned and occupied by one Girdharlal Bhagvandas Patel and Maniben w/ o Shankarbhai Naranbhai.
3.3. An agreement to sale was executed on 20th November, 1989 in favour of Ratnabhai Merabhai Bharvad and Ketan Rameshchandra Patel i.e. respondent Nos.4 and 5. According to the petitioners, entire sale consideration was paid by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the original owners.
3.4. Girdharbhai Bhagvandas Patel expired on 18th June, 1992. Thereafter, the sale deed was executed in favour of Ratnabhai Merabhai Bharvad and Ketanbhai Rameshchandra Patel by the Power of Attorney Holder Ramanbhai Shankarbhai Patel of late Girdharbhai Bhagvandas Patel and Maniben w/o Shankarbhai Naranbhai on the basis of irrevocable general Power of Attorney executed in favour of the Ramanbhai Shankarbhai Patel by late Girdharbhai Bhagvandas Patel on 20th November, 1989.
3.5. On the basis of the sale deed executed on 20th January, 2001, the Mutation Entry No.18898 was made in the Revenue Record, Village Form no.6 with regard to the land in question and was certified on 01.10.2001. It appears that thereafter the land was sold to one Mr.Umangbhai Haribhai Thakkar on 1st September, 2006 and Mutation Entry No.20054 was mutated and certified on 16.11.2006. The petitioners thereafter purchased the land from Umangbhai Haribhai Thakkar by registered sale deed dated 6th November, 2017 being the partners of one M/s. Rajvi Developers.
3.6. The respondent No.2-Deputy Collector issued a notice dated 17th December, 2022 upon the legal heirs of late Ratnabhai Merabhai Bharvad, Ketan Rameshchandra Patel and Arvid Girdharbhai Patel intimating the hearing of the Appeal Case No.152 of 2021 filed by the Circle Case Officer under Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 with regard to the Entry No.18898. The respondent No.2-Deputy Collector by order dated 11.01.2023 considered that the Entry No.18898 was mutated on the basis of the sale deed which is admittedly executed by the Power of Attorney Holder of late Girdharbhai Bhagvanbhai Patel on 20th January, 2001 though the executor of Power of Attorney Holder Girdharbhai Bhagvanbhai Patel expired on 18.06.1992 and ordered to condone the delay of twenty years in filing the Appeal by the Mamlatdar on b
The delay in filing an appeal does not affect a fraudulent transaction, which is void ab initio and a nullity.
The court held that the Deputy Collector's order setting aside multiple revenue entries was invalid due to procedural violations and lack of jurisdiction under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.
Deputy Collector could not have invoked suo motu jurisdiction after one year from the date of passing of any order passed by the Mamlatdar.
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 a....
The court ruled that delayed administrative actions undermining property rights must be resolved through civil courts, emphasizing the importance of timely legal recourse.
The exercise of revisional power under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act after a significant delay is improper and violates principles of natural justice.
The power to initiate proceedings under Section 9 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 is subject to the principles of natural justice and the requirement....
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
