AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.J.Desai, J
By way of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is legal heir of Somabhai Kabhaibhai Gohel has challenged the order dated 13.11.2013 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.24 of 1997, order dated 31.1.1997 passed by Deputy Collector, Kheda in Tenancy Appeal No.276 of 1996 and order dated 17.4.1976 passed by the Mamlatdar Krishi Panch at Anand in Tenancy Case No.284 of 1975.
The short facts arise from the record are as under :-
That an agricultural land bearing Survey No.553 of Vasad, Dist. Anand (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question') belonged to the respondent, namely, Shanabhai Somabhai Patel. The father of the petitioner i.e. Somabhai Kabhaibhai Gohel was tenant of the said land. The proceedings under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came to be decided in the year 1956 and the land in question which was in possession of deceased Somabhai Kabhaibhai Gohel was handed over to the original owner i.e. private respondents herein. Therefore, the said proceedings under Section 32-G of the Tenancy Act were dropped. Again on 17.4.1976, the case was proceeded being Case No.284 of 1975 under the Tenancy Act wherein the father of the petitioner i.e. Somabhai Kabhaibhai Gohel declared before the Mamlatdar that he had already handed over the possession of the land in question to the private respondents before 20 years.
In the year 1996, after the demise of Somabhai Kabhaibhai Gohel, the petitioner who is legal heir of Somabhai Gohel preferred appeal under Section 74 of the Tenancy Act challenging the order dated 17.4.1976 i.e. after a delay of 20 years. The authorities dismissed the case of the petitioner on the ground of delay and latches which has been confirmed upto the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.
Hence this petition.
In response to the notice issued by this Court, the private respondents have appeared through learned advocate Mr. Mrugen Purohit and opposed admission of the petition.
Mr. Paresh M. Darji, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner never used to put thumb impression and was able to sign the documents. He, therefore, would submit that the document dated 17.4.1976 which suggests that Somabhai Gohel had put his thumb impression by which he has declared that he had handed over the possession of the land in question before 20 years i.e. in the year 1956 is doubtful. He would further submit that for the said crime, FIR is already registered way back in the year 1997 which is pending before the competent Criminal Court. He would further submit that even the petitioner has also filed Civil Suit before the competent Civil Court which is pending. He, therefore, would submit that the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside and the petition be allowed.
On the other hand, Mr. Mrugen Purohit, learned advocate appearing for the private respondents has vehemently opposed this petition and would submit that the authorities have committed no error in passing the impugned orders in view of the fact that the challenge suffers from delay and latches. He would further submit that the possession of the land in question was handed over to the private respondents way back in the year 1956 which has been recorded by the revenue authorities in the revenue record and the names were mutated and even in the year 1976, in the proceedings under the Tenancy Act, the said Somabhai Gohel had declared that he had handed over the possession to the private respondents way back in the year 1956. By taking me through the impugned orders impugned in the petition, he would submit that the authorities have dealt with all the contentions raised by the petitioner.
He would further submit that the competent Civil Court has not granted any relief in favour of the petitioner nor the alleged crime is proved against the private respondents. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be dismissed.
I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, perused the impugned orders as well as necessary documents produced on record. It appears that in the proceedings which were initiated under Section 32 G of the Tenancy Act, declaration was made by deceased Somabhai Gohel in the year 1976 that he had handed over the possession of the land in question to the private respondents in the year 1956. Thereafter, the order dated 17.4.1976 of the Mamlatdar Krishi Panch, Anand came to be challenged by the petitioner who is heir of deceased Somabhai Gohel by way of appeal under Section 74 of the Act i.e. after the death of Somabhai Gohel i.e. after a period of 20 years from the date of the order and 40 years from the date of handing over possession of the land in question. The said proceedings was initiated by the petitioner on the vague ground that deceased Somabhai Gohel was able to sign the documents and hence, the thumb impression put in the declaration in the proceedings in the year 1976 is doubtful. Hence, in my opinion, the authorities have not committed any error in rejecting the proceedings initiated by the petitioner on the ground of delay and latches. Hence, the present petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.
However, it is made clear that the present petitioner may establish his rights in the civil proceedings.