FA/1570/1981 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1570 of 1981 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ====================================== 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 ? ====================================== NAGARDAS HARJIVANDAS PRAJAPATI AND ANOTHER Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ====================================== Appearance : NOTICE UNSERVED for Appellants. MS TRUSHA PATEL, AGP for Respondents. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 10/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged judgment and order of the City Civil Court dated 22-7-1981, whereby the suit filed by the appellants was dismissed. FA/1570/1981 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. The facts in brief, as emerging from record, are as under: 3. The appellants herein had purchased permanent tenancy rights of land bearing Survey No.324, 325 and 326 of village Vasna, Taluka City, District – Ahmedabad, (which were forming part of final plot no.173) from Pravinaben Maheshkumar Shah by deed of conveyance dated 30-7- 1975, which was registered on 1-10-1975. Thereafter, the appellants had submitted plants to the municipality for construction of building premises for their residential purpose. It was also the case of the appellants in the suit that the said land was held by Sajjadanashin of Shah Alam Roza. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that the during the minority of present Sajjadanashin land of Shah Alam Roza Trust was taken into possession by the Court of wards and the Collector of Ahmedabad was acting as a Court of ward. It is also averred in the plaint that the rents of suit land were paid and credited in the account of Shah Alam Roza Trust Estate maintained by Collector of Ahmedabad. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that lands of Survey No.324, 325 and 326 were held as tenant by Mohmadhussain Zahirhussain Bukhari and as such he was entitled to deal with the said land and said Mohmadhussain Zahirhussain Bukhari sold aforesaid land to Pravinaben Mahendrakumar Shah, who, in turn, sold suit land to the plaintiffs by deed of conveyance dated 30-7-1975. It is also averred in the plaint that since Inamdar granted N.A.permission to said Mohmadhussain Zahirhussain Bukhari, the plaintiffs are entitled to make N.A.use of the suit land. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that inspite of aforesaid facts, the Deputy Collector issued notice on 23-12-1976 stating that the construction carried out by the plaintiffs on suit land is illegal, as the said land is 'state padtar'. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have issued a notice calling upon the defendants to withdraw their claim of ownership in respect of the land in question. Since the said notice was not replied, the plaintiffs have filed FA/1570/1981 3/4 JUDGMENT aforesaid suit. 4. In the said suit, the defendants have filed their written statement. The defendants contended that lower Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It was also their case that since Inam Abolition Act came into force on 15-11-1969, suit land would vest in Government as per Section 8 of the said Act as Government waste land. It was also the case of the defendants that Inamdar was not entitled to grant N.A.permission and such right is given to the Collector under Land Revenue Rules. It is also contended by the defendants that the conveyance obtained by the plaintiffs is illegal. It was also contended that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Accordingly, defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. After considering the evidence on record, trial Court dismissed the suit by the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by it, the appellants have filed this appeal. 6. The appellants are unserved. Heard Ms.Trusha Patel, learned AGP appearing for the respondents. She supported the judgment of the lower Court and submitted that Gujarat Devsthan Inam Abolition Act came into force on 15-11-1969 and as per Section 8 of the said Act, suit land would vest in State Government as it is waste land. She also submitted that vide notice dated 23-12-1976, exh.22, Deputy Collector had asked the plaintiffs not to make any further construction as it is Government waste land, and as per Section 8 of the Act it vests in Government. She also submitted that all the rights held by an Inamdar in such land shall be deemed to be extinguished and it shall be lawful for the Collector to dispose of such land or a part of it. In view of above submissions she prayed for dismissal of this appeal. FA/1570/1981 4/4 JUDGMENT 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respondents and also gone through the judgment of the trial Court and other relevant documents. After considering the evidence on record, trial Court came to the conclusion that as per Section 4 of the Act, there is an implied bar to any suit involving a question which is required to be decided as per said Section and, therefore, the only order which could be passed in the present suit is that the suit is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, trial Court has dismissed the suit. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given and finding arrived at by the City Civil Court while passing impugned order. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 8. For the reasons stated herein above, the appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) /malek