Naranbhai Khushaldas Patel and Others vs Ranchhodbhai Mafabhai Patel and Others

M.R. Shah, J.—Rule. Shri Dave, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, matter is taken up for final hearing today.

By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-subsequent purchasers of the land in question have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN. BA. 309 of 1998 as well as the order dated 19.3.1998 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Ahmedabad passed in Tenancy Revision Case No. 06 of 1998 and consequently to restore the order dated 3.1.1998 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in Tenancy Case No. 118 of 1997.

That the disputed land in question was a new tenure restricted land. That the original land owner approached the Mamlatdar and ALT to remove the restriction as new tenure and convert it into old tenure, u/s 70(o) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, which was registered as Tenancy Case No. 118 of 1997 and the Mamlatdar and ALT by an order dated 3.1.1998 removed the restriction imposed on the land in question. That, it so happened that immediately on passing the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT removing the restriction and even before the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT is taken under suo motu revision, petitioners purchased the land in question by registered sale deed dated 27.1.1998. That the Deputy Collector (LR), Ahmedabad took the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 3.1.1998 into suo motu revision on 17.3.1998 and by order dated 19.3.1998 quashed and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 3.1.1998 removing the restriction imposed on the land in question meaning thereby restoring the status of the land in question as new tenure restricted land. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Deputy Collector (LR), Ahmedabad dated 19.3.1998 passed in Suo Motu Tenancy Revision No. 6 of 1998, respondent No. 1 herein-original land owner preferred Revision Application No. 309 of 1998, which came to be dismissed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2008 confirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector (LR), Ahmedabad dated 19.3.1998 in Tenancy Case No. 6 of 1998. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders passed by the Deputy Collector (LR), Ahmedabad as well as Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, petitioners being purchasers of the land in question have preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that without further entering into the larger controversy whether the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector (LR), Ahmedabad dated 19.3.1998 passed in Tenancy Revision Case No. 6 of 1998 and the impugned order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal are legal or not and without further entering into the question with respect to legality and validity of the aforesaid two orders, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case when the petitioners have purchased the land in question and are bonafide purchasers, they are ready and willing to pay the premium treating the land in question as new tenure land. It is submitted that they are ready and willing to pay the premium considering the market price prevailing in March 1998 with 12% interest and they are also ready and willing to pay the penalty which can be determined by this Court and/or Collector. It is submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to submit an appropriate application before the Collector, Ahmedabad for regularization of that sale on payment of premium considering prevailing market price as on March 1998 and the penalty. It is further submitted that suitable directions be issued directing the Collector to determine the premium after giving an opportunity to the petitioners and it is also stated at the bar that after giving an opportunity to the petitioners whatever the amount of premium is determined, that shall be binding to the petitioners. In support of his above submissions, he has relied upon the decisions of the learned Single Judge in the case of Subhashbhai Premaji v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2003 (4) GujLR 3457.

Shri Dave, learned AGP has submitted that as such in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners cannot be said to be bonafide purchasers looking to the period of passing of the order of the Mamlatdar and the transaction and entering into the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, it is submitted that as such it cannot be said that orders passed by the Deputy Collector as well as Gujarat Revenue Tribunal are in any way illegal. However, he has submitted that as the petitioners are ready and willing to regularize their sale and submit an appropriate application before the Collector and they are ready and willing to pay the premium treating the land in question as new tenure land with interest at the rate of 12% and also ready and willing to pay the penalty. Therefore, it is requested to pass an appropriate order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and without citing the order as a precedent.

Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considered the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Subhashbhai Premaji (supra). At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such considering the fact that an order was passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT on 3.1.1998/27.1.1998 removing the restriction on the land in question and immediately the land in question came to be transferred in favour of the petitioners by registered sale deed without giving reasonable time to the revisional authority to exercise the suo motu powers and, therefore it is very debatable question, whether petitioners can be said to be bonafide purchasers. However, without further entering into the aforesaid question, when the petitioners are ready and willing to submit an appropriate application before the Collector for regularization of their sale treating the land in question as new tenure land and are ready and willing to pay the premium considering the market price prevailing as on March 1998 with 12% interest and they are also ready and willing to pay the penalty which shall not be less than one time of amount of the premium, the case of the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case can be considered. Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also agreed that whatever the amount of premium is determined by the Collector after giving the opportunity to the petitioners, shall be binding to the petitioners and same shall be paid by the petitioners with 12% interest with penalty which shall not be less than one time of amount of the premium.

In view of the above and without citing the present order as a precedent and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, present Special Civil Application is disposed of. Let the petitioners submit an appropriate application before the Collector, Ahmedabad for regularization of their sale, with a request that they are ready and willing to pay the premium considering the market price which was prevailing in the month of March 1998 with 12% interest and they are ready and willing to pay penalty which may be determined by the Collector, which shall not be less than one time of amount of the premium, within a period of three weeks from today. On such application, Collector, Ahmedabad is to consider the said application for regularization of the sale in favour the petitioner and determine the amount of premium considering the market price as on March 1998, after giving the opportunity to the petitioners and petitioners to pay the said amount of premium determined by the Collector with 12% interest from 1998 till actual payment of premium and on payment of penalty determined by the Collector, which shall not be less than one time of amount of the premium and on payment of aforesaid amount within a period of four weeks of such determination, the Collector, Ahmedabad to pass formal order of regularization of the sale in favour of the petitioners. As agreed by the learned advocate for the petitioners whatever the amount of premium determined by the petitioners, after giving an opportunity to the petitioners the same shall be binding to the petitioners and same shall be paid by the petitioners with 12% interest from March 1998 till actual date of payment and that petitioners are also ready and willing to pay penalty that may be determined by the Collector, which shall not be less than one time of amount of the premium. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.