IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4590 of 1995 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY ========================================================= 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 ?
========================================================= MANIBEN WD/O CHHOTUBHAI BHAIDAS PATEL & 1 - Petitioners Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR DHIRENDRA MEHTA for Petitioners MR RAHUL DAVE AGP for Respondents Authorities MR SANDIP C SHAH for Respondent(s) : 2.2.1,2.2.2 - 4.
========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY Date : 12/10/2012 CAV JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition, challenge is made to the orders dated 24.4.1992 and 21.12.1994 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.
TEN-BS-197/88 and Review Application No. TEN-CS-9/92
2. Heard Mr.D.K.Mehta learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Rahul Dave, learned AGP for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Mehta has contended that the order passed by the first authority i.e. Mamlatdar was cryptic order and no reasons are recorded and therefore the proceedings are required to be declared as having vitiated from that stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Mehta has also relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of Amratlal Bhikhabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1994(1)GLR 637 and in the case of Rasulbhai Amirbhai Garasia vs. Dy. Mamlatdar (Revenue), Olpad & Ors., reported in 2003(4)GLR P. 2906, in support of his challenge to the impugned orders. It is also contended that the proceedings should be remanded to the first authority.
4. Learned AGP Mr. Dave, on the other hand has supported the orders of the Tribunal and has contended that the petition be dismissed.
5. Having gone through the record, the facts in brief, as reflected in the order of the tribunal are to the effect that the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. examined the applicant and Talati-cum-Mantri and by his judgment and order dated 18.2.1982 held that the applicant was holding excess land. The applicant filed ceiling Appeal No.171/1982 in the Court of the Dy. Collector, Olpad who allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Mamlatdar for rehearing. Mamlatdar after rehearing, by his judgment and order dated 31.7.1987 held that the applicant was holding excess land. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the applicant filed ceiling appeal No.38/1987 in the court of the Dy. Collector who dismissed the appeal. By the said order, the appellant was held to be holding excess land, even more than what was ordered by mamlatdar. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the applicant filed Revision Application before the tribunal. While dismissing the said revision application, tribunal recorded finding to the effect that though the Dy. Collector had remanded the case for rehearing, the applicant did not remain present and simply filed written statement before the mamlatdar and thus the applicant did not take any advantage of the order of remand passed by the Dy. Collector.
6. This Court finds that the order on remand passed by Mamlatdar dated 31.7.1987 was challenged before the Deputy Collector, Surat and the grievances of the petitioner were examined in detail and reasoned order was passed on 17.4.1988. While recording the said order, Deputy Collector, after taking into consideration all the factors came to the conclusion that not only the points raised by the petitioner were not well founded, even the Mamlatdar had erred by declaring less land as surplus land than what was required under the law. The Deputy Collector, from his perception corrected that mistake of the Mamlatdar and declared more land as excess than what was declared by the Mamlatdar. This order was challenged before the Tribunal making grievance to the effect that, in the appeal filed by the petitioner, Deputy Collector could not have put the petitioner in more disadvantageous position. This contention was accepted by the Tribunal but in the operative part, in the order dated 24.4.1992 rejected the revision application. Thus, the operative part in the order of the Tribunal stood inconsistent with the reasons recorded in the body of the order and to correct this error, which was apparent on the face of the record, a review application was filed by the petitioner which was allowed vide order dated 21.12.1994, and it was held that the order of the Mamlatdar dated 31.7.1987 shall get revived so far as the excess land held by the petitioner is concerned. However, so far as reasons are concerned, the Tribunal maintained that the order of the Deputy Collector dated 17.4.1988 was well reasoned order.
7. Having gone through the record, this Court does not find any infirmity in the reasonings recorded by the Tribunal. The petitioners, as can be seen from the Deputy Collector's order dated 17.4.1988, Annexure-B to the petition, are not entitled to hold the land to the extent, it is permitted. However, technically, that could not be so decided in the appeal filed by the petitioner and that error is already corrected by the tribunal. There is no reason to interfere in the decision of the Mamlatdar as upheld by the Tribunal.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Mehta has relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of Amratlal Bhikhabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1994(1)GLR 637 and in the case of Rasulbhai Amirbhai Garasia vs. Dy. Mamlatdar (Revenue), Olpad & Ors., reported in 2003(4)GLR P. 2906,, in support of his contention. So far as the decision of this Court in the case of Rasulbhai Amirbhai Garasia vs. Dy. Mamlatdar (Revenue), Olpad & Ors., (supra) is concerned, there the Court had found that the order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore, the matter was remanded to the competent authority. In the present case, this Court does not find any violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore, the said judgment will not be of any help to the petitioners. So far as decision of this Court in the case of Amratlal Bhikhabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (supra) is concerned, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition of law that the inquiry in question is a quasi judicial function of the competent authority and for the purpose of issuing the certificate, class of land is to be taken note of. From the reasonings recorded by the Deputy Collector and tribunal, this court finds that this aspect is duly taken care of by the authorities below. Under these circumstances, the judgment of this court in the case of Amratlal Bhikhabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1994(1) GLR 637 shall not take the case of the petitioners any further.
9. For the reasons recorded above, this court does not find any force in this petition, the same deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated. No order as to costs.
[PARESH UPADHYAY, J.] mandora/