SUNDERLAL BHANABHAI BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. P. Majmudar for the appellants, learned AGP Mr. N. J. Shah for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. R. S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Dilip Kanojiya, learned Advocate for respondents No. 5 and 6.

(2.) The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 13406 of 2010, by which the learned single Judge has confirmed the order dated 20.7.2007 passed by the Secretary. Revenue Department, in Revision Application No. 4 of 2006. affirming the order dated 18.9.2003 passed by the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Case No. 23 of 2002.

(3.) Mr. Majmudar, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged that by sale deed dated 26.12.1990 the appellants had sold fragmentation of land in favour of the respondents No. 3 and 4, which was not permissible in law and, therefore, the said sale deed was void. It is further submitted that the sale deed executed by him in favour of the said respondents was illegal and void and, therefore, the same was liable to be set aside, but, the Secretary, Revenue Department has illegally dismissed the Revision on the ground of delay of about 3 years and 2 months as there was no application filed along with the Revision Application for condonation of delay. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Saburbhai Hemabhai Chauhan v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2000 1 GLH 580 wherein it has been held that if the sale deed is found void ab initio, it can be questioned at any stage by anybody and submitted that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Secondly, he has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa & Ors. v. Brundaban Sharma & Anr., 1995 Supp3 SCC 249 wherein it is held that where the order is void or non est, in such a situation, it would confer no title and its validity can be questioned in any proceeding at any stage. It is further submitted that the learned single Judge has also failed to appreciate the said fact and has rejected the writ petition. He. therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed.