SHANTABEN HARIBHAI LALLURAM BHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Ms. Asmita Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1 to 3, Mr.Dhiraj M.Patel, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.4/1 to 4/3 and Mr.H.M. Prachchhak, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition has been heard and finally decided by this judgment.

(2.) By preferring this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 17-06-2011 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ("Tribunal" for short), rejecting the application dated 25-09-2008, filed by the petitioners, for joining as party respondents to Revision Application No.TEN/BA/423/94,filed by respondent No.4, on several grounds raised in the petition.

(3.) The case has a chequered history. In order to appreciate the same, a short narration of the factual matrix would be necessary. It is the case of the petitioners that the land bearing Survey No.1116/1, 1116/2 and 1116/3, situated at Kadi (the land in question) was mutated in the name of Pranshankar Mahadev, ever since the year 1956. At one point of time, Haribhai Lallubhai Bhatt became the "Pujari" and was managing all the affairs of the Temple. His name was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the land in question. Haribhai Lallubhai died in the year 1976, after which the name of his widow, Shantaben, was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the land in question. It appears that Shantaben gave the land on lease, for a period of ten years, to respondent No.4, Shri Atmaram Dwarkadas Patel, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.4/1 to 4/3. The lease expired in the year 1988 and was not renewed thereafter. Respondent No.4 made an application to respondent No.3, Mamlatdar and ALT, Kadi, to be declared as a tenant under the provisions of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948. Respondent No.4 also sought a declaration that he is deemed to have purchased the land in question. Respondent No.3 passed an order on 18-08-1989,declaring respondent No.4 to be a tenant upon the land in question. As the above-mentioned order was passed by respondent No.3 without hearing Shantaben, she challenged the same before respondent No.2, Deputy Collector, who quashed and set it aside, by his order dated 09-08-1990, and remanded the matter back to respondent No.3, for fresh hearing and consideration. Even after remand, respondent No.3 did not grant an opportunity of hearing to Shantaben, and again passed an order declaring respondent No.4 as a tenant, on 20-02-1992. Shantaben once again preferred an appeal against the order dated 20-02-1992, passed by respondent No.3, before respondent No.2. For the second time, respondent No.2 quashed and set aside the order passed by respondent No.3, by his order dated 10-02-1994, on the ground of lack of opportunity of hearing to Shantaben. Aggrieved by the order dated 10-02-1994 passed by respondent No.2, respondent No.4 preferred a revision application, registered as Revision Application No.TEN/BA/423/94, before the Tribunal. During the pendency of this Revision Application Shantaben died on 13-09-2004. For reasons best known to the Tribunal, Shantaben"s name came to be deleted from the array of parties. Without joining the legal heirs and representatives of Shantaben in the proceedings, the Tribunal allowed the Revision Application filed by respondent No.4, vide order dated 23-11-2007. While doing so, the Tribunal observed that, as Shantaben"s name has been deleted, her legal heirs were not required to be joined as parties to the proceedings. This order of the Tribunal was ex parte, as far as the petitioners, who claim to be the legal heirs of Shantaben, are concerned. Aggrieved by the order dated 23-11-2007, passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners filed a petition before this Court, being Special Civil Application No.6256 of 2008. By an order dated 28-8-2008, this Court disposed of the petition by holding that: