Aslam Faridbhai Ghasletwala and Another vs State of Gujarat and Others

J.B. Pardiwala, J.—The Appellants - original writ Petitioners, by way of this Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 16th February 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1429/2010, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the Appellants have no locus to challenge the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.

The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this Appeal can be summarised as under:

The Appellants - original writ Petitioners purchased the land in question bearing Survey No. 242 paiki admeasuring 2416 sq.yards situated in the sim of Jamalpur from its erstwhile owner Yakubbhai Noormohammadbhai Ghasletwala on 15th February 2008 by a registered sale deed.

It appears that the said Yakubbhai Noormohammadbhai Ghasletwala had purchased the land in question from Respondent No. 4 by way of a registered sale deed dated 16th August 1975. The name of Yakubbhai and other purchasers were mutated in the revenue records. The entry made in the revenue records was also certified by the competent authority. Thereafter, there was partition of the land in question between the members of family of Yakubbhai and 237 sq.yards of land came to the share of Yakubbhai.

It appears from the record that the Mamlatdar initiated proceedings for breach of Sections 43 and 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, ''the Act'') against the purchaser as well as seller of the land in question i.e. Yakubbhai and Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 2 Mamlatdar came to the conclusion that the transaction is in violation of Sections 43 and 63 of the Act and consequently, Respondent No. 2, vide order dated 25th October 1989, ordered forfeiture of the land of erstwhile owner Yakubbhai into the Government u/s 84-C of the Act. Record further reveals that being aggrieved by the order dated 25th October 1989 passed by the Respondent No. 2, Yakubbhai preferred appeal being Appeal No. 138/1990 u/s 74 of the Act before the Respondent No. 3 Deputy Collector.

Respondent No. 3 Deputy Collector, vide order dated 29th October 1991, confirmed the order of the Respondent No. 2 Mamlatdar.

Being aggrieved by the orders of the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector, the said Yakubbhai preferred Revision Application No. 688/1991 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad u/s 76 of the Act. The Tribunal, vide order dated 23rd March 2001, confirmed both the orders of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and rejected the Revision Application. Record reveals that Yakubbhai preferred Review Application being TEN C.A. No. 18/2001 before the Tribunal, which also came to be rejected vide order dated 25th October 2002.

Record reveals that inspite of this entire history of litigation and the fact that Yakubbhai lost upto the Tribunal, the Appellants herein purchased the land in question on 15th February 2008 by way of a registered sale deed.

It deserves to be noted that Yakubbhai did not deem fit to challenge the order of the Tribunal dated 23rd March 2001 but the Appellants herein who purchased the land in question on 15th February 2008 thought fit to challenge the order of the Tribunal dated 23rd March 2001 before the learned Single Judge after a period of nine years.

The learned Single Judge took notice of all these facts and ultimately came to the conclusion that the Appellants purchased the land in question in the year 2008 knowing fully well that there were three orders passed by the revenue authorities forfeiting the land to the Government u/s 84-C of the Act. The learned Single Judge also took notice of the fact that how the Appellants could have challenged the order of the Tribunal passed way back in the year 2001. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Appellants have no locus to challenge the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which was passed against the original land owner from whom the Appellants purchased the land in question, more particularly, when the erstwhile owner has not challenged the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.

The learned Single Judge also noticed that the erstwhile owner Yakubbhai passed away only in the month of March 2008 and, therefore, even if the erstwhile owner would have challenged the order passed by the Tribunal, then also the same would be deserved to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches.

We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Devang J. Joshi appearing for the Appellants and Mrs. Krina Calla, learned AGP for the State.

It is not possible to accept the submissions of learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Appellants herein are the bonafide purchasers of the land in question and that they have right to challenge the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 23rd March 2001 as affected party or aggrieved party. Firstly, we take notice of the fact that there are concurrent findings of three revenue authorities holding that the transaction between the erstwhile owner Yakubbhai and the deleted Respondent No. 4 was in violation and breach of Sections 43 and 63 of the Act. There is no challenge so far as this aspect is concerned. The only challenge on the part of the Appellants herein is that when the revenue authorities decided to initiate proceedings under the Act against the erstwhile owner, there was a delay of about 14 years. It is not possible to accept the contention of delay also, more particularly, at the end of the Appellants herein who have purchased the land in question after it was ordered to be forfeited with the Government.

We are of the view that if the learned Single Judge, after taking into notice all the aspects referred to above, refused to interfere with the orders passed by the revenue authorities in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, then in that case, no error can be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the petition.

For the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that there is no merit in the present appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.