GULAM HUSEN JIVABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this Letters Patent Appeal broadly stated are that in an inquiry held by the City Survey Officer in respect of the claim made by this appellant-original plaintiff over the suit open site (called as Vada land) bearing Chalta No. 102 situated in the town of Dholka in the District of Ahmedabad an order dated 20th July 1951 was passed under sec. 37 of the Land Revenue Code declaring the land having vested in the Government and the plaintiff having no claim of ownership thereon. Against that order the plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal to the Prant Officer who by his order dated 9th December 1953 upheld the order passed by the City Survey Officer and dismissed the appeal. Against that order also an appeal to the Collector Ahmedabad was filed and by an order dated 8th January 1964 it came to be dismissed. Against that order a Revision Application No. BRT. 137/54 came to be filed before the Bombay Revenue Tribunal and by an order dated 10th April 1956 that application came to be dismissed.

(2.) That led the plaintiff to file Civil Suit No. 1324 of 1956 against the then State of Bombay in respect of the same property in the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) at Ahmedabad. Therein he prayed for a declaration that the suit property was of his ownership and possession and that the orders passed by the City Survey Officer on 20th July 1951 by the Prant Officer on 9th December 1953 by the Collector on 8th January 1954 and by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal on 10th April 1956 were ultra vires and illegal and for an injunction restraining the defendant-State from causing any obstruction to the plaintiff in the enjoyment of the said property. The defendant-State resisted the suit inter alia contending that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property and that it belonged to the Government and that the orders passed against him and referred to in the plaint were neither ultra vires nor void. It also contended that the plaintiffs suit was barred by limitation under sec. 37(3) of the Land Revenue Code as also under Art. 14 of the Indian Limitation Act.

(3.) The trial Court raised the necessary issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and while it found that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff the orders passed by the revenue officers were neither ultra vires nor illegal and were binding on the plaintiff. It further held that suit was barred both under sec. 37 of the Code as also under Art. 14 of the Indian Limitation Act. In the result the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit directing the parties to bear their own costs. Feeling dissatisfied with that order the plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No. 110 of 1958 in the Court of the District Judge at Ahmedabad. It was heard by the Assistant Judge at Ahmedabad who agreed with the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the result dismissed the appeal with costs. Against that judgment are decree passed on 14th October 1959 by Mr. D. G. Tatke Assistant Judge Ahmedabad the plaintiff filed Second Appeal No. 1211 of 1960 in this Court. Our learned brother Raju J. who heard it found that the order was in no way ultra vires or illegal and that the suit should have been filed within the period of limitation provided under sec. 37 of the Code. Not having done so it was time barred and in the result he dismissed the appeal making no order as to costs. On a request made by the learned advocate for the plaintiff - appellant leave to appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent was granted by him. It is that way that this Letters Patent Appeal has come up before the Division Bench of this Court.