The court emphasized the need for serious consideration of the legitimacy of proceedings initiated under Section 84(C) by a third party and the implications of unmutated sale records.

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehul Shah with learned advocate Mr.Viral Shah on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayneel Parikh on behalf of the respondent – State and learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mihir Thakore with learned advocate Ms.Shivangi Gupta and learned advocate Mr.Masoom Shah on behalf of respondents no.6 and 7.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT) dated 27.05.2024 in Revision Application No. BS/19/2019 and BS/23/2019.

3. Considering the submission made by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehul Shah, it would appear that the proceeding under Section 84(C) initiated by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Choryasi in the year 2017 as regards the sale proceedings of the year 2006 was called into question. It would appear that the Mamlatdar and ALT had inter alia observed that there was a breach of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act more particularly since the petitioners are deemed to be non-agriculturist.

3.1. The said order being challenged by the petitioners before the Deputy Collector, the Deputy Collector had partly allowed the challenge and had remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar and ALT for fresh hearing and whereas, it appears that the said order had been challenged by both the petitioners as well as the private respondents before the learned GRT and whereas it is in this group of challenge, the learned GRT has passed the order impugned.

3.2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shah would submit that the proceedings initiated by Mamlatdar under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act suffered from the vice of being initiated after an unreasonable period of time. It was also submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shah that the said powers had been exercised at the instance of a person who was a complete stranger to the transaction in question.

4. As against the same, it is the contention of learned Senior Advocate Mr.Thakore for the private respondents that mutation with regard to the sale of the year 2006 had never taken place in the revenue record and whereas, under such circumstances, the petitioners would not be right in contending that the proceedings under Section 84(C) were delayed.

5. Having heard learned Senior Advocates for the respective parties, since prima facie it appears that the proceedings under Section 84(C) had been initiated at the behest of a third party to the transaction and whereas the effect of the sale deed not having been mutated in the revenue record disentitling the purchases to claim that the proceedings were delayed, are the issues which would require adjudication i.e. whether the State Authorities were justified in initiating proceedings under Section 84(C) at the behest of a stranger to the transaction and whether in absence of the effect of the registered sale deed being mutated in the revenue record, could the State Authorities be heard to contend that the proceedings under Section 84(C) was not delayed, are all issues which would require serious consideration.

5.1. Furthermore, till such consideration takes place, the petitioners are entitled to interim relief since they are purchasers upon paying consideration and the proceedings have been initiated after twelve years of the transaction.

Again, if the impugned decisions are not interfered at this stage, an irreversible situation may arise which would seriously prejudice the petitioners.

6. Having regard to the prima facie observations, issue Notice to the respondents, returnable on 09.09.2024. Learned AGP Mr.Parikh waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent – State and learned advocate Ms.Gupta waives service of notice on behalf of respondents no.6 and 7. 6.1. By way of ad-interim relief, the operation of the order passed by the learned GRT dated 27.05.2024 confirming order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Choryasi in Tenancy Case No.19/2017 is hereby stayed.