IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ., PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.
Heirs of Decd. Ranjitsinh Bhimsinh Vaghela, Bhupendrasinh Ranjitsinh Vaghela - Applicant
Versus
The Collector, Gandhinagar District & Ors. – Respondents
R/Civil Application (For Condonation Of Delay) No. 4172 Of 2024 In R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1353 Of 2024 With R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1353 Of 2024 In R/Special Civil Application No. 8123 Of 2023 With Civil Application (For Additional Evidence) No. 1 Of 2024 In R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1353 Of 2024 In R/Special Civil Application No. 8123 Of 2023 With Civil Application (For Additional Evidence) No. 2 Of 2024 In R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1353 Of 2024 In R/Special Civil Application No. 8123 Of 2023 With R/Civil Application No. 4182 Of 2024 In R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1355 Of 2024 With R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1355 Of 2024 In R/Special Civil Application No. 15826 Of 2023 With Civil Application (For Additional Evidence) No. 1 Of 2024 In R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1355 Of 2024 In R/Special Civil Application No. 15826 Of 2023 With Civil Application (For Additional Evidence) No. 2 Of 2024 In R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1355 Of 2024 In R/Special Civil Application No. 15826 Of 2023
Decided On : 02-09-2024
Delay - Appeals - Civil Procedure Code - Sections 5, 14 - The court condoned delays in filing appeals, emphasizing the necessity of timely justice while also affirming the dismissal of appeals based on the substantive rights extinguished due to non-payment of purchase price.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a judgment that upheld previous orders affecting the petitioners' rights to land, which were claimed based on their father's historical tenancy and subsequent legal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' rights to the land had been extinguished due to non-payment of the purchase price, and previous orders had not been challenged, rendering their claims untenable.
Issues: Whether the petitioners retained any rights to the land despite the extinguishment of their father's rights due to non-payment of the purchase price and the implications of previous legal orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners could not revive claims based on their father's extinguished rights, as they failed to challenge relevant orders and substantiate their claims of payment.
Result: The appeals are dismissed as misconceived.
JUDGMENT :
(Sunita Agarwal, CJ.) :
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4172 of 2024
The delay of eight days in filing the instant appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The Delay Condonation Application is hereby allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Office shall allot regular number to the appeal.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4182 of 2024
The delay of nine days in filing the instant appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The Delay Condonation Application is hereby allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Office shall allot regular number to the appeal.
COMMON ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1353/2024 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1355 OF 2024
1. Both the above noted appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. They have been heard together and have been decided by this common judgment and order.
2. Heard Mr Anshin Desai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Sudhanshu Jha, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
3. The instant appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the challenge to the Order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Review Application No. Review/CA/28/2015 and the Revisional Order dated 06.07.2015 passed in Revision Application No.19 of 2001 has been turned down.
4. It is vehemently argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/original petitioner that both the Revisional Orders dated 06.07.2015 and the Order passed in the Review Application dated 14.12.2022 have seriously prejudiced the petitioners, inasmuch as, with the adjudication in a proceedings against the third party namely a person, whose name was shown as tenant in the land in question, mistakenly, the rights of the petitioners to the land in question had been affected.
5. It was repeatedly argued that the petitioners were required to file application for review for the reason that a third party, who had no concern with the land in question, had been declared as tenant of the land in question, though, the petitioners are still in possession of the land in question. It was further submitted that however the said third party had lost in the subsequent proceedings before the Tribunal.
6. Be that as it may, the facts, which are sought to be placed before us are an effort to create a confusion or complicate the simple issue, which was before the learned Single Judge about the right of the petitioners to seek a writ of declaration directing the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar to re-decide the price of the purchase of the land in question pursuant to the order of the Mamlatdar in Ganot Case No.738 of 1985 by the father of the petitioners. In essence, the petitioners sought a declaration of their right with respect to the property in question through their father, who was initially declared as tenant of the land in question.
7. The crux of the matter is that with respect to four survey numbers, which are subject matter of dispute herein, initially in the year 1957, father of the petitioners was in possession and was declared as tenant and relevant review entries were mutated to that effect in the year 1966. However, on account of non-payment of the purchase price, the purchase of the land in question namely Survey No.667, 807/1 and 807/2 and 809 were declared ineffective vide Order dated 08.10.1976. According to the petitioners, inspite of the said fact, the possession of the land in question remained with the father of the petitioners.
8. Be that as it may, a Government Resolution dated 21.12.1983 was published, whereunder, those tenants, who could not pay the purchase price of the land earlier had been given one more opportunity to pay the purchase price within the time prescribed therein. The last date for submitting the application under the Government
AI
The court established that rights to land can be extinguished by non-payment of purchase price, and unchallenged orders prevent revival of claims.
A Tribunal must consider delay and established equity before ruling on tenancy rights; long possession and undisputed admissions can override substantial delays, ensuring justice is served.
The main legal point established is that unexplained delay in challenging an order and the validity of a land transaction under the Tenancy Act can lead to the rejection of the appeal.
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....
A judgment obtained by fraud is a nullity and can be challenged at any time. Fraud and justice cannot coexist, and those approaching the court must do so with clean hands.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.