NATHUBHAI NAROTAMBHAI PATEL Vs. GANPAT HIRAMAN MISALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 28.7.2016 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant - petitioner Nathubhai Narottambhai Patel along with the petitioner No.2 Viraj Rustamji Patel with the following observations:

(2.) Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel with Mr.Nirav C.Sanghavi, learned counsel for the appellant, urged before us that the petitioner No.1 Nathubhai Narotambhai Patel was tenant of the land holder petitioner No.2 Viraj Rustamji Patel and his rights as a tenant was declared by the learned Mamlatdar under Section 70 (b) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948 (for short "the Act") under which provision, the learned Mamlatdar has power to decide whether a person is or was a tenant or a protected tenant or a permanent tenant. He submitted that petitioner No.1 also got a Purchase Certificate issued by the competent authority on 13.7.1992 which by virtue of Section 32 M of the said Act was the conclusive proof of his rights over the land in question namely, Block No.124 admeasuring 4 Hector and 66 Ares and 00 Gunthas. He further urged that the Non-Agricultural (NA) permission earlier given to the petitioner No.2 was cancelled on 16.9.1987 by the Taluka Development Officer which, however, came to be restored by the District Collector on 22.12.1992 .

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for some of the purchasers, Mr.Amit Thakkar, vehemently opposed these submissions and urged that the Order dated 24.2.1992 was passed by the Mamlatdar in a very hasty manner on the application of present petitioner No.1 and it smacks of malafides and the very fact that the Non-Agricultural character of the land which was cancelled by Taluka Development Officer was restored by the learned District Collector proves that the sale of land in question in favour of the various purchasers was absolutely legal and valid and the Registered Sale Deeds in favour of such purchasers could not have been set aside or ignored by the Mamlatdar while passing the order dated 24.2.1992 . He also submitted that despite the fact of such sales made by petitioner No.2 Mr.Viraj Rustamji Patel in favour of 383 purchasers having come on the record before learned Mamlatdar, he deliberately did not choose to issue any Notice to these purchasers, whose rights were apparently sought to be adversely affected by the proceedings undertaken by the said Mamlatdar under Section 70(b) of the Act, at the instance of the said two petitioners. He also submitted that petitioner No.1 Mr. Nathubhai Nartotambhai Patel and petitioner No.2 Viraj Rustamji Patel have apparently colluded with each other and could succeed before learned Mamlatdar in their Tenancy Case No.1/1992 vide their application filed on 24.1.1992 and the learned Mamlatdar obliged them and passed the impugned order in their favour on 24.2.1992 which has been rightly quashed and set aside by the Courts/Tribunals/Authorities below consistently and the same does not call for any interference. He also submitted that the Registered Sale Deeds in favour of such various purchasers can only be challenged in properly instituted civil suits in the Civil Courts and the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to cancel the same.