(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR)
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No.8338 of 2011.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has confirmed the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.BA.194 of 1992, the order passed by the Deputy Collector as well as of the Mamlatdar. The land in question is an agricultural land. Since the original owner of the land tried to sell the said land to non-agriculturist i.e. present appellants, the proceedings were initiated under section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as "the Tenancy Act")to invalidate the transaction because as per the scheme of the Tenancy Act, the agricultural land could not have been transferred to non-agriculturist without permission. Before the Mamlatdar, none had appeared on behalf of the alleged purchasers i.e. present appellants, but the original land owner appeared before the Mamlatdar and pointed out that he is willing to put the land into the original position. The concerned Mamlatdar, accordingly, passed the order by confiscating the land to the State in view of the provisions of section 84-C of the Tenancy Act. That order was confirmed upto the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the learned Single Judge also dismissed the petition.
3. Learned counsel Mr.Raval appearing for the appellants submitted that before the Mamlatdar, no notice was served upon the petitioners. We have gone through the order of the Mamlatdar and it is found that one of the purchasers had already accepted the notice on behalf of others, but they have neither appeared personally nor engaged any advocate nor submitted anything. The original land owner contested the proceedings. The order of the Mamlatdar was challenged after a period of four years. In the meanwhile, it is an admitted position that the land in question is already allotted to the cooperative society in the year 1993. As a matter of fact, the present petitioners, thereafter, have filed the civil suit against the society for possession and that proceedings are still pending.
4. Learned Single Judge has found that the petitioners have not joined the society in the earlier proceedings either before the appellate authority or before the Tribunal in revision and nor even before the learned Single Judge. The proceedings before the learned Single Judge were in the nature of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that the appellants have joined the said society as party in the Letters Patent Appeal for the first time for which permission was granted. In our view, in this Letters Patent Appeal, for the first time, this Court cannot consider the issue denovo as in the original proceedings, the society was required to be joined as party as the allotment of land in question was made to the society as back as in the year 1993. Learned Single Judge has considered this aspect and in our view, since it is an admitted position that the order of invalidating the sale was passed by the Mamlatdar in the year 1987 in which the present appellants i.e. purchasers have never appeared and considering this fact, the land in question was already allotted to the society in the year 1993, yet the society was not joined as party to the proceedings though the said transaction was in the knowledge of the appellants. At this stage, the proceedings are not required to be enlarged further by permitting the appellants to join the society as party and to hear the say of the society in this appeal. It is required to be noted that the appellants have already filed the civil suit against the said society which is pending in the civil court which according to Mr.Raval is filed in the year 2005 and the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was filed in the year 2011 and yet the appellants have not joined the said society as party.
5. Considering the aforesaid aspect, we do not find any substance in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(P.B.Majmudar,J) (Mohinder Pal,J) pathan Top