Gujarat High Court High Court

Sureshchandra vs State on 19 January, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Sureshchandra vs State on 19 January, 2011
Author: Md Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/4366/2000	 3/ 3	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4366 of 2000
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4367 of 2000
 

 
 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
 
 
=========================================================

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

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 ?
		
	

 

 
=========================================================

 

SURESHCHANDRA
CHUNILAL PARMAR - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
SIDDHARTH H DAVE FOR MR AJAY R MEHTA
for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
Mr.L.R.Pujari, AGP  for Respondent(s) : 1, 
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 19/01/2011 

 

COMMON
ORAL ORDER

The
petitioner of Special Civil Application No.4366 of 2000 purchased
the land bearing City Survey Nos.60/B/1 Final Plot No.3/2/21
admeasuring 50.4 sq.mtrs. while the petitioner of Special Civil
Application No.4367 of 2000 purchased land bearing City Survey
No.60/B/1 Final Plot No.3/1/22 admeasuring 61.16 sq.mtrs. along
with house in the year 1985 by registered sale deeds. In the year
1996, the Collector initiated proceedings and came to the conclusion
that as the transactions took place between Adivasi and non-Adivasi,
transactions were declared as nullity and passed orders quashing and
setting aside the sale deeds. When they were challenged by way of
revision before the revenue authority, orders passed by the
Collector were confirmed by the revenue authority. Hence, the
present petitions.

Heard
learned advocate, Sidharth H.Dave for Mr.Ajay R.Mehta for the
petitioners and learned AGP, Mr.L.R.Pujari for the respondent
No.1-State in both the petitions.

It
transpires from the records that first transaction qua the disputed
lands in both the cases took place in 1956 between one Fakruddin
Miyabhai Sheikh and non-Adivasi and houses were constructed on the
said lands. Thereafter, T.P.Scheme came into existence and new
numbers were also allotted to the said properties as if they are
non-agricultural lands situated in the City. Thereafter in the year
1985, the respective petitioners have purchased the lands from the
respondent No.2-Rasilaben Samabhai Hathila. This clearly showed that
since 1956 till 1996, no proceedings were initiated by the concerned
authority and after long lapse of time initiated the proceedings.
Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court reported in 1984(2)
G.L.R. page 1225 in the case
of Ranchhodbhai Lallubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and
Others wherein it has been held by this Court in para 4 as
under:

“On
the peculiar facts of this case, it has got to be held that the
power exercised by the concerned authorities under sec.9 was at
grossly belated stage and as there was unreasonable delay in
exercise of that power, the exercise would be ex-facie unreasonable
unjust and illegal. ….. Such an action on the part of the
authorities exercising powers under the Act for a number of years
and waking up one fine morning after 7 years by issuing notice to
the concerned parties for showing cause why the transaction entered
into by them should not be declared as null and void, has got to be
held, on the facts of this case, to be quite unreasonable.”

In
view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid reported
decision, order dated 30-10-1996 passed in LND-8 Case No.11/96 by
the Deputy Collector as well as order dated 28-3-2000 passed
SRD/JMN/PCHM/22/97 by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue
Department, Ahmedabad, are quashed and set aside. Both the petitions
are allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(M.D.SHAH,J.)

radhan

   

Top