Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6505/1994 6/ 6 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6505 of 1994
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
GUJARAT
CO-OPERATIVE OIL SEEDSGROWERS FEDERATION LTD. - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MANIBHAI
CHHAGANBHAI PATEL & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DR BHATT for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR MAHENDRA K PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2,4 - 5.
UNSERVED-EXPIRED (R) for
Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 15/11/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Gujarat Co-operative
Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd. is before this Court challenging
the order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Gujarat State in
Revision Application No.SRD/CON/MSN/3/93 dated 10/12.01.1994 a copy
of which is produced at Annexure-A and also the order passed by the
Prant Officer, Mehsana dated 28.01.1993, a copy of which is produced
at Annexure-F.
2. The Prant Officer,
after taking into consideration ‘the nature of the controversy’
involved in the matter and ‘the parties’ involved in the mater,
passed a very balanced order, giving all possible indulgence within
the law to the petitioner. This is reflected from the contents of
para which is just above the operative part of the order. It is
specifically mentioned in the said para that, ‘the purchaser of the
land is a Co-operative institution. This land is used for
non-agricultural purpose. There is a construction made on the land.
Rida Mill is in running condition. The entire land is in possession
of opponent No.3 (the present petitioner). The original land owners
are not in possession. Thus, the possession of the land is with
opponent No.3 (the present petitioner). The said land is in the
possession and occupation of Grofed since 1983 and by constructing a
Rida factory on that land, investment of lacs of rupees is made.
Grofed is a State level co-operative institution, working for the
benefit of farmers. Hence, in the public interest, it will be
appropriate if that institution is granted an opportunity to complete
the required procedure under the law. Therefore, if the remaining
land admeasuring 1 acre 26 gunthas (of Block No.898, which admeasured
5 acres and 06 gunthas, of which the present petitioner purchased 3
acres and 15 gunthas) is allowed to be purchased by registered sale
deed and opponent No.3 (the present petitioner) is allowed to obtain
necessary permission under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy &
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and Section 65 of the Land Revenue Code,
the question will stand resolved and hence, the following order is
passed’.
2.1 Opponent No.3 (the
present petitioner) did not deem it proper to avail the indulgence
granted by the Prant Officer, Mehsana and challenged this order by
filing Revision Application before the Deputy Secretary (Appeals)
being No.SRD/CON/MSN/3/93, which came to be decided by order dated
10/12.01.1994. Being aggrieved by that, the present petition is
filed.
3. Learned Advocate
Mr.Bhatt for the petitioner could not put forward any reason much
less any convincing reason for the present petitioner to adopt this
course of action. This Court is unable to visualize any earthly
reason for adopting this course of action. What was required by the
Prant Officer was that, ‘the present petitioner to purchase the
remaining land of Block No.898 admeasuring 1 acre and 26 gunthas as
it had already purchased 3 acres and 15 gunthas of that Block, which
had resulted into a fragmentation being created and thereby causing
breach of law related to fragmentation’.
4. Learned Advocate for
the petitioner relied upon various judgments of this Court, firstly
telling this Court that he is relying upon a ‘ reported’
judgment, as if ‘reported’ judgment carries more weight than the
‘unreported’ judgment. Later on, he cited the judgment with the name
of the learned Judge, as if the judgment by a particular learned
Judge carries more weight than the judgment by another learned Judge.
This practice is deprecated. Learned Advocate is having a standing
of 30 years at the Bar. He should have appreciated that a judgment,
either reported or unreported, carries same weight and a judgment by
any learned Judge of the Court carries the same weight and therefore,
name of the learned Judge is not required to be mentioned in the
arguments.
5. All the judgments
relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner are on the
point that power exercised under the Bombay Prevention of
Fragmentation & Consolidation of Holdings Act is to be exercised
within a particular time limit. In one judgment, relied upon by the
learned Advocate for the petitioner, reported in 1988 (1) GLH
(U.J.) 20 in the case of Nanji Mulji Thumar Vs. State of
Gujarat & Ors., power was sought to be exercised after 24
years, after the transaction. The Court was pleased to hold that
this is not permissible. All other judgments relied upon by the
learned Advocate for the petitioner are also on the same line. But
then, these judgments have no application to the facts of the present
case because in the present case, the Prant Officer did not quash and
set aside any transaction. On the contrary, he gave an opportunity
to the petitioner to purchase the remaining land of Block No.898 so
as to see that technical breach of fragmentation law does not
survive.
6. It is the ill-advice
obtained by the petitioner which has caused the difficulty for the
petitioner. This Court, having perused the order passed by the Prant
Officer and the order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), finds
that there is no substance in the petition. The petition is
dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier is
vacated forthwith.
It will be
inappropriate if cost is not awarded in such a misconducted and
mis-convinced matter. The petition is dismissed with cost of
Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred) only, deposit of the
cost shall be the condition precedent for filing further proceedings
in the matter.
7. At this juncture,
learned Advocate for the petitioner requested that status quo granted
earlier be continued for some time.
The request is
declined for the reason that the petitioner does not deserve any
further indulgence as it has failed to avail the indulgence granted
by the first authority at the initial stage of the litigation.
(Ravi
R.Tripathi, J.)
*Shitole
Top