IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.
BHAGWATIBEN JAMNADAS THAKKAR – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 9040 of 2021, Civil Application (For Vacating Interim Relief) No. 1 of 2023
Decided On : 04-12-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. proceedings involve vacating interim relief. (Para 1) |
| 2. the petition challenges prior orders affecting land ownership. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. disputes relate to revenue correction and land ownership. (Para 3) |
| 4. arguments presented on procedural fairness and natural justice. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 5. arguments presented regarding procedural failures by authorities. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 6. court emphasizes the necessity of natural justice in revenue proceedings. (Para 10 , 16 , 17 , 20) |
| 7. judgment emphasizes the importance of hearing parties in administrative procedures. (Para 12) |
| 8. court orders quashing of prior decisions for lack of due process. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 9. final order disposing of the civil application. (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT :
NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.
1. Today Civil Application (for vacating interim relief) no. 1 of 2023 is listed on board. However, considering the fact that by hearing such application for vacating interim relief, the Court is required to touch the merits of the matter and therefore, with the consent of the parties, the main matter was taken up and heard finally.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in MVV/HKP/MRB/40/2018 with its consequential effects and has further prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the Collector, Morbi as well as order dated 30.09.2009 passed by Deputy Collector, as if the order dated 30.09.2009 is never passed.
3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.S. Shah with learned advocate Mr. Amar Mithani for the petitioners, learned AGP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Meet Kakadia for learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the respondent no. 9.
4. Though the dispute pertains to the orders passed for corrections in the revenue record, what is important to note is the fact that neither the petitioner nor the contesting respondent i.e. respondent no. 9 are the original owner of the land and both are the subsequent purchasers of two adjoining lands for which the acquisition had taken place as back as in the year 1978 and compensation has been received by the petitioners as per the say of learned advocate Mr. Kakadia appearing for the respondent no. 9.
5. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are stated as under:
5.2. On 10.03.1987, one Shri Ram Ceramic purchased the subject land from Pradyumansinh Bhikubha Jadeja by way of registered sale deed and the said Shri Ram Ceramic had taken advances from Gujarat State Financial Corporation and hence, one equitable mortgage was created over the land in question. Since, Shri Ram Ceramic could not repay the advances, the possession of the land in question was taken over by Gujarat State Financial Corporation and the property was put to auction and on 21.04.1998, the deceased-petitioner Shri Jamnadas Valamjibhai Thakkar purchased the property in question as he was the successful purchaser and a registered sale deed was executed in his favour on the same date i.e. 21.04.1998. Since then as per say of the petitioner, the possession of the land in question is with the petitioners and the petitioners are having valid title of the land in question.
5.3. In the year 2002, the petitioners had applied for revised N.A. permission for utilizing the land in question for commercial purpose and the same is granted by Taluka Development Officer, Morbi. The National Highway Authority
Revenue authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice when altering land records, providing notice and opportunity for affected parties to ensure fair proceedings.
it was impermissible to Collector to have taken the entries nos.2208 and 2209 in suo motu revision after a period of almost close to five years. Therefore, the exercise of power by the Collector in t....
Once a person is selling away the land in question, he cannot maintain litigation as he has lost interest, title and that being the position
The scope of judicial review is confined to decision making process and not the decision per se.
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.