Advocates:
['AB MUNSHI', 'GOVERNMENT PLEADER', 'KETTY A MEHTA', 'MP PRAJAPATI']

C/SCA/3744/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3744 of 2007

With

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3745 of 2007

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI

==========================================================

1

Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed

to see the judgment ?

2

To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3

Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

of the judgment ?

4

Whether this case involves a substantial question

of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution

of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================

HEMABEN AASHIK NARSINH & 1 other(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & 10 other(s)

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR AB MUNSHI(1238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2

for the Respondent(s) No. 1

MS.JIRGA JHAVERI, AGP (1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

MR MP PRAJAPATI(677) for the Respondent(s) No.

10,11,3,4,4.1,4.2,4.3,4.4,4.5,5,6,7,8,9

MRS KETTY A MEHTA(464) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI

Date : 04/08/2021

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners have preferred this petition, under Article 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India, raising the following issues before

this Court:-

1. Whether the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereafter referred to

Page 1 of 18

C/SCA/3744/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2021

as “the Tribunal”) committed an error in cancelling the

order dated 25-2-2004 passed by the Deputy Collector,

Choryasi Prant, Surat, after the lapse of period of about two

years?

2. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in entertaining the

revision application filed by respondents No.4 to 11 who had

no locus standi to file such a revision application, they having

sold the land in question the petitioner No.1 herein and

thereafter to respondents No.2 and 3 herein by registered

sale-deeds and had pocketed an amount of Rs.12 lacks from

the petitioner No.1 towards full consideration of the said

land?

3. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in interfering with

the order dated 25-2-2004 passed by the Deputy Collector,

Surat which was an executive order passed in exercise of

power under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and

Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as “the

Tenancy Act”), whereby the Deputy Collector had granted

permission in respect of the land in question?

4. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not appreciating

the law laid down by this Honourable Court to the effect that

a person who has sold the property legitimately, has no right,

title or interest surviving in the said land and therefore, he

has no right to challenge any order passed in favour of a

purchaser?

5. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in ignoring the

guidelines laid down by the Revenue Department of the

Government of Gujarat in its Resolution dated 29-4-1980

which were/are required to be followed by the concerned

competent authorities while dealing with cases of grant of

permission under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act?

6. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not appreciating

the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in its

decision reported in 10 G.L.R. page 992 to the effect that

proceedings for revising any order cannot be initiated after

the lapse of a few months?

7. Whether the action on the part of the Tribunal in cancelling

permission granted to petitioner No.1 is violative of

petitioners’ fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles

14,19 (1) (e) and (g) and 300 A of the Constitution of India?”

Page 2 of 18

C/SCA/3744/2007