AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.G. Shah, J.—Heard Ld. Counsel Mr. A.J. Patel assisted by Mr. Nachiket A. Dave for appellant and Ld. Counsel Mr. J.V. Bhairavia for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. N.J. Shah, Ld. AGP for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Present appellant was original respondent no. 3, whereas present respondent no. 1 was original petitioner in the impugned order and judgment dated 3/10/2012 in Special Civil Application No. 4332/2000. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are referred to herein as per their status in the Special Civil Application.
The appellant herein being respondent no. 3 before the Ld. Single Judge was in arrears of irrigation tax and, therefore, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 authorities have initiated proceedings to recover such amount by way of land revenue. During such procedure by Mamlatdar, Surat, auction held for the sale of land in question. The respondent no. 1 herein being petitioner before the Ld. Single Judge had offered the highest price and, therefore, land was declared as sold in his favour and on payment of sale price, entry no. 982 was recorded by the Revenue Officer and the same was certified by the Mamlatdar on 28/3/1976.
Thereafter, by an order dated 3/12/1999 respondent no. 1 - Special Secretary [Appeals] had initiated suo-motu proceedings and taken the order in revision and issued show cause notice to the petitioner that why such allotment of land should not be cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was not an agriculturist, only because he was not residing within the area of 8 KMs from the land in question on the date when auction was held, and thereby there is violation of the provisions of The Bombay Land Revenue Code.
Though the petitioner has submitted his case before the respondent no. 1, respondent no. 1 was pleased to allow the revision and thereby quashed and set aside the entry dated 26/3/1976, by order dated 18/3/2000 i.e. after a period of almost 24 years.
Being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has filed Special Civil Application No. 4332/2000 challenging the order dated 18/3/2000 passed by the respondent no. 1. Before the Ld. Single Judge, both the parties have submitted their reply affidavits with relevant documents in favour of their respective case.
Ld. Single Judge has by impugned order and judgment dated 3/10/2012 allowed the petition quashing the order dated 18/3/2000 passed by the Secretary [Appeals] by which entry dated 26/3/1976 in favour of the petitioner was disturbed and thereby now that entry has become operative. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the order of the respondent no. 1 - Secretary [Appeals] was correct inasmuch as, as and when they have found out the illegality in the revenue record, they have initiated the proceedings and there is no role of the appellant "in initiation of such proceedings wherein disputed entry was quashed and set aside. It is further contended that the reason for quashing and setting aside the impugned entry is mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not agriculturist and there was breach of provisions of law and, therefore, such illegality cannot be endorsed and thereby requested to dismiss this appeal.
Whereas Ld. Counsel Mr. JV Bhairavia for the original petitioner has supported the impugned judgment relying upon the factual details narrated hereinabove that the respondent no. 1 has initiated the proceedings almost after 20 years. He further submitted that practically they have purchased the land in open auction process by the Government and they owned such land after making payment of its price to the Government and, therefore, now the Government should be estopped from stating that their own action of auction and sale was illegal. He is also relying upon the judgments which are cited before the Ld. Single Judge and discussed in the impugned order.
Rival contentions and record are taken into consideration. Both, from the arguments and record, it clearly emerged that in fact original petitioner has taken part in the open auction initiated by the revenue authorities for sale of the disputed property in the year 1976 or prior to that and that original petitioner has purchased the land in open auction by offering highest price. Therefore, objection or litigation after 20 years is certainly not tenable. It is not disputed that original petitioner has got the right over the property only after payment of price fixed during the auction. It is also not disputed that present appellant has never challenged the auction or possession of original petitioner for all these more than 20 years. At present the appellant is taking the chance by filing present appeal though he has never bothered to challenge the entry dated 28/3/1976 and surprisingly, present litigation has been brought up only because of the suo-motu action being taken by the Secretary [Appeals] in Revision Application only on 3/12/1999 i.e. after 16 years.
Therefore, only on such ground of initiation of proceedings at belated stage, the original petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed for, which is ultimately allowed by the Ld. Single Judge and, therefore, there is no substance in the Letters Patent Appeal.
If we peruse the impugned judgment and order, it becomes clear that Ld. Single Judge has considered all the issues raised by both the parties before it and also examined the citations referred before it for determining the issue on hand. Thereby we could not find out any arbitrariness or illegality or perverseness in the impugned order.
The Ld. Single Judge has determined that the Secretary [Appeals] has committed an error in passing the order dated 18/3/2000 because it was passed nearly after 20 years. For such long time the revenue authorities could not find the defect either in the auction or in the entry and, therefore, the Ld. Single Judge has observed that the approach of the Collector was apparently impermissible. It has also been brought on record that at the initial stage also the matter has been taken care of in RTS Case No. 42/1994 wherein Collector has passed an order on 10/8/1994 and same was challenged before the Secretary [Appeals] in Revision No. 78/1994, wherein by order dated 16/10/1996 the Secretary [Appeals] has allowed the revision of original petitioner quashing the order of the Collector and thereby confirming the entry in question. Therefore, the Ld. Single Judge has rightly held that once respondent no. 1 has decided the matter on 16/10/1996, there is no reason for them to reopen the case again in the year 1999 by order dated 3/12/1999.
The Ld. Single Judge has also taken into consideration the decisions in the case of Valjibhai Jagjivanbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, , Rameshbhai Ambalal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, , Shambhu Videshiram Morya v/s. State of Gujarat reported in 2012 (1) GLR 665 and Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, . The Ld. Single Judge has quoted relevant paras from such cases in the impugned judgment and narrated factual details also in detail and, therefore, we do not wish to reproduce the same herein. The Ld. Single Judge has also answered all the issued raised by the present appellant deciding that Secretary [Appeals] was not justified to hold that the sale was hit by section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. In view of the above facts, circumstances and discussion, we could not find out any arbitrariness, illegality or irregularity in the judgment and order passed by the Ld. Single Judge impugned in the present intra-court appeal. Therefore, in absence of any arbitrariness or illegality, there is no reason to interfere with the findings given by the Ld. Single Judge in the impugned order and, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.