SCA/7069/1999 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7069 of 1999 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7072 of 1999 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7074 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= VALIBEN B VANKAR - Petitioner(s) Versus RANA RANJITSINH PARAKRAMSINH & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SV PARMAR for Petitioner(s) : 1, (MR BJ JADEJA) for Respondent(s) : 1, M/S PATEL ADVOCATES for Respondent(s) : 1, MR HM JADEJA for Respondent(s) : 1, MS. MANISHA LAVKUMAR AGP for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 21/10/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/7069/1999 2/6 JUDGMENT 1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in this group of petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Facts as emerging from SCA No.7069 of 1999 can be noticed. Petitioner herein has challenged order dated 8.9.1995 passed by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal as also an order dated 13.8.1996 passed by Deputy Collector implementing the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Rana Parakramsinh was holding certain agricultural lands with respect to which proceedings under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act ('the Act' for short) were initiated. Mamlatdar & ALT declared certain portion of holding of Rana Parakramsinh as excess land by his order dated 31.1.1989 in Ceiling Case No.36 of 1977. Admittedly, the original land-owner or his heirs did not challenge the order passed by SCA/7069/1999 3/6 JUDGMENT Mamlatdar. Apparently, on the premise that the land was mortgaged by the land holder and the same was allegedly auctioned by the bank who had advanced loans, the auction purchasers challenged the order of Mamlatdar before the Deputy Collector by filing an appeal. This appeal came to be dismissed by the Deputy Collector by order dated 8.11.1993. Though heirs of Rana Parakramsinh had not themselves preferred any appeal against the order of Mamlatdar, in the guise of challenging the order passed by the Deputy Collector, they preferred a revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal being Application No.TEN BA 15/94. It appears that in the meantime the surplus land of Rana Parakramsinh was taken over by the Government and distributed to landless members of the Scheduled Caste community i.e., the petitioner herein. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal not only SCA/7069/1999 4/6 JUDGMENT entertained the revision application of heirs of deceased Rana Parakramsinh but also allowed the same by impugned order dated 8.9.1995. Significantly, the allottees of the land i.e., present petitioners were not joined as parties in the said revision application. Upon the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal setting aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector, Deputy Collector passed consequential order dated 13.8.1996 evicting the petitioners i.e., the allottees of the land. It is stated that even this eviction was without prior notice. 3. Having heard the learned advocate Mr. SV Parmar for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.HM Jadeja for private respondent and Ms. Manisha Lavkumar for State of Gujarat, I find that the impugned orders cannot sustain. As already noted, order passed by Mamlatdar & ALT declaring certain portion of the land of deceased Parakramsinh as surplus was never challenged by him or his heirs. Some other persons claiming to SCA/7069/1999 5/6 JUDGMENT have purchased the land through auction sale approached Deputy Collector challenging the order passed by Mamlatdar. This appeal was dismissed. On that basis heirs of original land owner deceased Parakramsinh approached Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. In the meantime, possession of excess land was already taken over by the Government and it was distributed among different persons including the petitioners. These persons were not joined as parties before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal entertained the revision application and allowed it without realizing that the revision applicants had never challenged the order passed by the Mamlatdar before higher authorities and had thus accepted the same and the same had also become final. Equally importantly Deputy Collector acted on the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal without hearing the petitioner who by then was enjoying possession of the land since few years and actually cultivating the same. SCA/7069/1999 6/6 JUDGMENT 4. For all accounts the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and consequential order passed by the Deputy Collector cannot be stated to be legal. The said orders are therefore quashed and set aside. State Government shall restore possession of the land to the present petitioners expeditiously and in any case not later than 31.12.2008. 5. With these directions, the petitions are disposed of. Rule is made absolute in each of the petitions. (Akil Kureshi, J.) ... (karan)