Kantilal Biharilal Saini vs State of Gujarat and 1 Another

Rajesh H Shukla, J.—The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for the prayer inter alia the order passed by the Respondent No. 2 - Deputy Collector dated 1.4/6/1999 may be quashed and set aside on the grounds stated in the memo of petition. Heard learned Counsel Shri Vishal B. Mehta for the petitioner and learned AGP Shri Bharat Vyas for the Respondents.

Learned Advocate Shri Vishal B. Mehta for the petitioner has referred to the papers and submitted that the impugned order dated 1.4/6/1999, produced at Annexure-G, has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing on the ground that earlier Special Civil Application No. 6224 of 1998 has been dismissed. Learned Advocate Shri Mehta referred to the earlier order of the High Court (Coram: M.R. Calla, J.) dated 8.3.1999 produced at Annexure-C and submitted that the liberty was reserved, and therefore, the opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner. He also submitted that the premium/rent has also been paid for conversion of the land by the petitioner, and therefore, the present petition may be allowed.

As it transpires from the facts, the order at Annexure-A dated 27.10.1980 refers to the permission for sale or transfer of the land subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Thereafter, as reflected in detail in the order passed by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 6224 of 1998 dated 8.3.1999, the entire procedure has been followed and the petitioner had availed of every remedy and was not successful. Therefore, he filed Special Civil Application No. 6224 of 1998, and there is also a reference to the earlier petition, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 312 of 1992, which was withdrawn unconditionally as per the order dated 17.1.1992. In spite of that, as observed, the liberty was reserved that he may make an application, but with specific direction not later than 15 days from the date of the order, i.e. 8.3.1999. On a specific query, learned Advocate Shri Mehta submitted that after this order was passed, the petitioner made an application on 8.5.2000 and in July 2000. Meaning thereby, it was much after 15 days as directed.

As it transpires from the complete background of the facts, there has to be a finality to a litigation, and the public policy also require that the person cannot be permitted to agitate on one ground or the other ostensibly pursuing the remedy though in fact every procedure and the hierarchy has turn down his application after considering the issue involved.

Earlier, the High Court, in Special Civil Application No. 6224 of 1998 has also clearly observed about the fact that when Special Civil Application No. 312 of 1992 was disposed of and was withdrawn unconditionally, the said order had attained finality. It is specifically observed:

The petitioners challenged these orders through Special Civil Application No. 312 of 1992 and this Special Civil Application was withdrawn by the petitioners unconditionally on 17.1.1992 and the same was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The impugned orders had attained finality. Merely because the notices in consequence of the aforesaid orders have been given to the petitioners now on 20.7.98, it does not furnish any fresh cause of action to the petitioners to re-agitate the grievances against the same impugned orders against which they had already preferred a Special Civil Application before this Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The notice dt. 20.7.98 (emphasis supplied) is only consequential to the earlier orders and, therefore, there is no question of maintaining this Special Civil Application.

In spite of this, the Court had permitted to make an application within 15 days, which was not made, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that no opportunity has been given. Earlier, when the notices have been served, the same has been litigated, and now it is claimed, when it is communicated consequential communication at Annexure-G on the ground that no opportunity has been given. In the circumstances, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. No order as to costs.