Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIRAL R. MEHTA, J.
Minbai D/o Deshalbhai Jalu W/o. Nathabhai Bhagwanbhai Kothivar – appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 14510 of 2023
Decided on : 02-09-2023
Permission - Land Dispute - Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949, Section 54, Rule 18 - The court discussed the legality and validity of the permission granted under Section 54 read with Rule 18 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949. The court highlighted the petitioner's claim of right, title, and interest in the land, the objections raised against the purchase of land by Saurashtra Cricket Association, and the non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the permission. The court emphasized that the petitioner's challenge to the permission pales into insignificance as the sale deed was already executed and challenged before the Civil Court, and the authorities were not obliged to hold a full-fledged inquiry adjudicating rights of the parties at the stage of Section 54 of the Ordinance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the permission granted under Section 54 read with Rule 18 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949, regarding the purchase of agricultural land by Saurashtra Cricket Association. The petitioner claimed her right, title, and interest in the land, raised objections against the purchase, and filed a civil suit seeking partition and cancellation of the sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's challenge to the permission was misconceived and with mala fide intention to exert unnecessary pressure. The court noted that the sale deed was already executed and challenged before the Civil Court, and the challenge to the permission paled into insignificance. The court also emphasized that the authorities were not obliged to hold a full-fledged inquiry adjudicating rights of the parties at the stage of Section 54 of the Ordinance.
Issues: The issues involved the legality and validity of the permission granted under Section 54 of the Ordinance, the petitioner's claim of right, title, and interest in the land, the objections raised against the purchase of land by Saurashtra Cricket Association, and the non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the permission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the challenge to the permission under Section 54 of the Ordinance paled into insignificance as the sale deed was already executed and challenged before the Civil Court. The court emphasized that the authorities were not obliged to hold a full-fledged inquiry adjudicating rights of the parties at the stage of Section 54 of the Ordinance.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed summarily with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
[1] By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 24th January 2023 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) as well as the order dated 26th April 2019 passed by the Assistant Collector, Rajkot (Rural), by which permission under Section 54 read with Rule 18 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 (for short, “the Ordinance”) came to be granted.
[2] The case of the petitioner can be stated as under:
[2.1] The land bearing survey No.251 (old survey No.78) along with some other lands bearing survey Nos.100, 142, 116, 155, 78 and 61 paiki of village : Khandheri, Taluka : Padadhari, District : Rajkot were purchased by the father of the petitioner namely Ahir Deshalbhai Jalu and one Ahir Arjan Desa on 4th December 1961.
[2.2] On 27th December 1961, Deshalbhai expired leaving behind his widow namely Devuben, sons namely Naranbhai and Karshanbhai and daughter namely Minbai. However, by way of mutation of entry No.79 dated 17th July 1967, the names of Naranbhai and Karshanbhai were posted in the record of right by suppressing the names of Minbai and their mother namely Devuben. However, the mutation of entry No. 79 was not certified as it was represented by Naranbhai and Karshanbhai that they are the registered sale deed holder, but could not produce the said registered sale deed.
[2.3] On 11th September 1967, an application was filed for mutation of names of heirs of Deshalbhai. However, in the said application, the name of Minbai was not disclosed. The mutation of entry No.90 was posted on 25th September 1967. At the relevant point of time, since Minbai was minor, therefore, having come to know about fraud committed by her brothers, in the year 2016, Minbai filed RTS Appeal No.38 before the Deputy Collector challenging the mutation of entry No.90. However, the said RTS Appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
[2.4] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid, RTS Revision No.4 of 2018 was filed before the Collector. On 27th September 2018, RTS Revision No.4 of 2018 was dismissed by the Collector.
[2.5] Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, Revision being 96 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) and the same was dismissed on the ground of delay. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a petition before the High Court of Gujarat and the said petition was dismissed on 24th September 2019, and consequentially, R/Letters Patent Appeal No.116 of 2020 preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 28th January 2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.
[2.6] During the pendency of revenue proceedings, respondent No.3 herein - Saurashtra Cricket Association, vide Public Notice dated 20th February 2019, declared its intention to purchase the subject land. On 21st February 2019, the petitioner raised objections.
[2.7] Despite the objection was raised by the petitioner, the Saurashtra Cricket Association, on 8th May 2019, entered into transaction and got an agreement to sale executed in its favour. Thereafter, on 5th September 2019, the Saurashtra Cricket Association got the sale deed executed in its favour.
[2.8] The petitioner filed a Special Civil Suit No.156 of 2019 against the heirs of Naranbhai and Karshanbhai and the Saurashra Cricket Association for the following reliefs:
(B) Declare that will dtd. 12.7.60 is void.
(C) Cancellation of agreement to sell dtd. 8.5.19 and sale deed dtd. 5.9.19, and ME No.1469 dtd. 15.10.19.
(D) Permanent injunction.”
[2.9] On 21st February 2019, the Saurashtra Cricket Association sought permission under Section 54 read with Rule 18 of the Ordinance to purchase the agricultural land. The Deputy Collector and Prant Officer, vide order dated 26th April 2019, granted permission under Section 54 read with Rule 18
The challenge to the permission under Section 54 of the Ordinance paled into insignificance as the sale deed was already executed and challenged before the Civil Court, and the authorities were not o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent corporation has the authority to suspend development permission and must provide both parties with an opportunity to present th....
The main legal point established is that the absence of permission and validation under the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act 1950 renders a sale transaction void and unlawful.
Point of law: Since notice has been issued after 78 years, it is completely beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, the notice itself would be a nullity and without any jurisdiction. When the....
A void transaction cannot be regularized and a void document cannot be validated.
The court emphasized the importance of proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the need for valid mutations in land disputes.
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
