LPA/23319/1998 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 233 of 1998 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12553 of 1994 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.2057 of 1999 in LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 233 of 1998 .. For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2To 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 ? ================================================= ARVIND GOYENKA & 2 – Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ================================================= Appearance : Mr.MUKESH VAIDYA with Mr.D.V. PARIKH for Appellant(s) : 1 - 3. RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. =============================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER LPA/23319/1998 2/5 JUDGMENT Date : 12/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI) Learned advocate Mr.Mukesh Vaidya appearing for Mr.D.V. Parikh for the appellant submitted a copy of an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: J.M. Panchal, J. (as he then was) & A.M. Kapadia, J. (as he then was)] dated 4th May 2000 in Letters Patent Appeal No.232 of 1998 in Special Civil Application No.12548 of 1994; Letters Patent Appeal No.234 of 1998 in Special Civil Application No.12558 of 1994; and Letters Patent Appeal No.235 of 1998 in Special Civil Application No.12557 of 1994. He submitted that the present Letters Patent Appeal may also be disposed of in the same terms. He submitted that it was due to inadvertence that the present appeal could not be listed along with those appeals. 2. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP), Ms.Tanuja Kachchi for the respondent. Learned AGP invited attention of the Court to paras 3 and 4 of the said judgement, which read as under: “3. Mr. D.V.Parikh, learned counsel for the appellants states that even if the Court does not find substance in the appeal, opportunity to restore status-quo ante as contemplated by section 84-C(2) of the Act should be afforded to the appellants as well as the respondents. Mr. G.M.Amin, learned counsel for the respondents no.5 to 7 also states at the Bar LPA/23319/1998 3/5 JUDGMENT that the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. Gandhinagar while holding that the alienation of the land in question in favour of the appellants was contrary to the provisions of the Act, had permitted the parties to bring the land in question to its original position and, therefore, the request made by the learned counsel for the appellants should be accepted. Mr. R.C.Kodekar,learned A.G.P. has stated that respondents no.1 to 4 have no objection if the appellants are permitted to restore the land to its original position by remanding the matter to the Mamlatdar & A.L.T., Gandhinagar. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and taken into consideration the documents forming part of the petition as well as the orders passed by the competent authorities. The facts of the case suggest that before the sale was effected in favour of the appellants, no permission as contemplated by section 63 of the Act was obtained by the original respondents no.5 to 7 or by the appellants. Under the circumstances, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the competent authorities i.e. Mamlatdar & A.L.T., Gandhinagar, Prant Officer, Gandhinagar and Revenue Tribunal as well as by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the sale was contrary to the provisions of the Tenancy Act being just and proper, is not liable to be set aside in the present appeal. However, initial order dated September 6, 1985 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Panch No.1, Gandhinagar clearly indicates that the parties were given opportunity to bring the disputed land to its original LPA/23319/1998 4/5 JUDGMENT position and if that was done within 90 days from the date of intimation of the order, the direction that the land would vest without any encumbrance to the Government, was not to be implemented. This order of the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. Gandhinagar has been stayed all throughout. Therefore, in the interest of justice we feel that the parties should be permitted to restore status-quo ante before the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. Gandhinagar and for that purpose the matter deserves to be remanded to the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. Gandhinagar.” 3. This Court is of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid facts, a similar direction, as was given by this Court in the aforesaid judgement and order, be given. 4. For the foregoing reasons, the Letters Patent Appeal partly succeeds. The matter is remanded to the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. Panch No.1, Gandhinagar before whom the parties would be entitled to restore status-quo ante in respect of the land in question within 90 days from the date of receipt of the writ. If the parties bring the disputed land in its original position before the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. Gandhinagar within 90 days from the date of receipt of the writ, order dated September 6, 1985 directing that the land shall vest without any encumbrances to the State Government, shall not be implemented. The appeal stands accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs. LPA/23319/1998 5/5 JUDGMENT Office is directed to send writ to respondent no.3 immediately. Direct Service is permitted. 5. As the Letters Patent Appeal is finally disposed of, no order in Civil Application No.2057 of 1999. The same is disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged. (RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) (K.M. THAKER, J.) karim