Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1696
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.
Mohanbhai Pitambarbhai Parmar and Others - Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat and Others - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 16610 of 2024
Decided On : 13-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ashish H. Shah
For the Respondents: J.K. Shah, S.P. Majmudar
To maintain a petition under Articles 226 and 227, a party must demonstrate that they are an aggrieved person whose legal rights have been infringed. Inaction and prior transactions may preclude standing.
Headnote:(A) Tenancy Act - Sections 63 and 84
(C) - Challenge to orders regarding ownership and possession of land - Petitioners lack locus standi to contest subsequent orders, having sold land and not challenged prior orders - Acquiescence noted due to inaction over a year - No legal right infringed as per established precedents. (Paras 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 18)
(B) Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 - Definition of 'aggrieved person' in the context of legal rights and remedies - Petitioners deemed to have waived rights and cannot reclaim the land after benefiting from the sale. (Paras 17, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged an order from the GRT which revived prior rulings related to land ownership disputes. The land had a complex history involving multiple transactions and legal proceedings, including declarations of adverse possession and reconveyance. (Paras 3.1-3.9)
Findings of Court:
The GRT's order was upheld; petitioners were not considered aggrieved parties as they had prior ownership and beneficial transactions regarding the land. Their failure to challenge earlier decisions reinforced their lack of standing. (Paras 6.1-7)
Issues: The key questions were the maintainability of the petition based on locus standi, and the implications of acquiescence regarding the petitioners' claims to the land. (Paras 5-6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that a party must demonstrate they are aggrieved by an infringement of legal rights to maintain a petition. The inaction of the petitioners over prior orders led to a waiver of any claims. (Paras 17, 19)
Result: The writ petition was dismissed as misconceived.
JUDGMENT :
NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Thakkar appearing for learned advocate Mr.Ashish Shah on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.J.K.Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr.Meet Kakadiya appearing for learned advocate Mr.S.P.Majmudar on behalf of respondent no.3 on caveat.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioners challenge order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the SSRD more particularly whereby the SSRD has set aside an order dated 17.06.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector which had resulted in an order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara which was set aside by the Deputy Collector being revived.
3. Facts, since they are checkered, are required to be elaborately mentioned for better appreciation of the dispute on hand.
3.1. It would appear that the land in question is land bearing survey no.120 situated at Village: Tandalja, Taluka District: Vadodara admeasuring 4654 sq.mtrs. It appears that the land had been purchased by the grandfather of the petitioners from its owners vide registered sale deed dated 15.04.1968 and whereas, the said transaction had been mutated in the revenue record in the year 1968 itself vide entry no.975.
3.2. It appears that the grandfather of the petitioners had sold the land vide registered sale deed dated 30.03.1982 to respondents no.4 to 6 and whereas, entry with regard to the same had been mutated in the revenue record vide entry no.1443 in the year 1982 itself. It appears that the respondents no.4 to 6 had sold the subject land to the husband of the respondent no.2 herein. It appears that in the year 1987, proceedings under Section 84(C) had been initiated by the Mamlatdar for breach of Section 63 of the TENANCY ACT and whereas, the Mamlatdar had dropped the proceedings vide order dated 18.01.1989 and the same had been confirmed by the Deputy Collector in Revision Case No.466/1989 which order had been confirmed by the GRT vide its order dated 11.02.2002 in TEN/BA/722/1993.
3.3. It appears that the respondents no.7 to 9 had, in the interregnum, filed civil suits being Regular Civil Suits No.380, 391 and 392 of 1998 against the father of the petitioners inter alia seeking a declaration that they are owners and occupiers of the land through adverse possession. It appears that the parties i.e. the father of the petitioners and the respondents no.7 to 9 had entered into a settlement on 08.09.1998 and whereas, respondents no.7 to 9 were declared as owners of the land by way of adverse possession and whereas, names of respondents no.7 to 9 came to be mutated in the revenue record vide mutation entries no.2468, 2469 and 2470 in the year 1998.
3.4. In the meanwhile, though respondents no.4 to 6 had already sold the land in favour of the husband of the respondent no.2 herein, yet, they had entered into re- conveyance deed dated 05.03.1999 in favour of the father of the petitioners and whereas, entry with regard to the same had been mutated in the revenue record in the year 1999 being entry no.2492. On the other hand, husband of the respondent no.2 sold the land in question to respondent no.3 vide registered sale deed dated 28.05.2001 and whereas, originally, while the deed had been impounded for deficit stamp duty and the same had been released on 16.01.2008.
3.5. It appears that the respondents no.7 to 9 had filed Regular Civil Suit No.924/2004 against respondents no.2 and 3 before the Civil Court at Vadodara for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of respondents no.2 and 3 herein. On the other hand, respondent no.2 had filed counterclaim for setting aside decree passed in RCS Nos. 380, 391 and 392 of 1998 more particularly for declaration that the said decree is not binding on respondent no.2. It would appear that the parties had settled the suit vide settlement deed dated 22.06.2011 more particularly whereby respondents no.7 to 9 had admitted to sale deed of the respondents no.2 and 3 had also
