NIRUBEN NARANBHAI ISHWARBHAI DANTANI Vs. YAMUNADUTT AMILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Special Civil Application is filed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the impugned judgment and order, the application for joining party in the proceedings pending in Revision No. AMD/316/2022 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has been dismissed.

(3.) The brief facts in the present case is that the land bearing Survey No.212 situated at Bodakdev, Taluka: Ahmedabad admeasuring 3 acres 00 gunthas was registered in the name of late Budhalal Chotalal Jhaveri who by way of two registered sale deeds transferred the land in favour of the father of respondent No1 and father of respondent Nos.2 to 4 whose name came to be entered as joint owners in the revenue record since the year 1977. On 26/2/1980 since then the answering respondents are in lawful ownership and possession of the aforemenioned survey No.212. It is further the case that thereafter on 18/10/2018 the said respondents and other joint owners applied for change of use of land bearing survey No.212 for non-agricultural purpose before the District Collector, wherein, the District Collector vide its order was pleased to grant NA permission in favour of the said respondents. That thereafter on 15/2/2020, the present petitioners through their power of attorney challenged the order granting NA permission by filing a Revision Application and stay application before the Revenue Department (Appeal) raising a contention that the original owner namely Budhalal Chotalal Jhaveri had executed a notarized will in the year 1987 in favour of the late Narangbhai Dantani, the father of the petitioner. It appears that the proceeding under Sec. 84 (C) of Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was initiated by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Ghatlodhiya against the respondent No.3 and others in respect of land bearing Survey No.48 situated at Mauje- Ambli, Taluka: Ghatlodhiya, Ahmedabad vide order dated 04. 02.2019 and confirmed by the Deputy Collector vide order dtd. 29/11/2021 in suo moto revision. The respondent No.3 and others therefore preferred Revision Application No.316 of 2022 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on the ground that no notice was served upon the respondent No.3 with regard to initiation of proceedings under Sec. 84(C) of the Act by the revenue authority. The petitioner herein filed an application under order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for impleadment as a third party through their power of attorney holder in his individual capacity. The learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal after hearing both the sides was pleased to reject the application filed by the power of attorney holder of the petitioners herein. The petitioners aggrieved by the said order dtd. 7/11/2022, impugned herein, have preferred the present Special Civil Application. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal did not consider the aspect that the original applicant Yamunadatt Amilal and others were not agriculturists and that they have inserted their names in the revenue records by manipulation. It is further submitted that the original applicants were not farmers and they have not attained such rights from their ancestral hierarchy, but, they have wrongly shown themselves as beneficiary of the will of other farmer and thereby they have claimed their identity as a farmer which is not legal and permissible in law. He further submitted that the learned Deputy Collector has examined the issue related to the land situated at Survey No.48 Mauje Ambli, Taluka: Ghatlodhia. That the Deputy Collector has declared the original revisionist Yamunadatt Amilal and other as not farmers. He further submits that the said revisionists have further purchased the agricultural land bearing Survey No.212, Bodakdev on the basis of such status as farmer and thereby took illegal benefit. It is submitted that the present petitioners are beneficiary of a will executed by the original owner Budhalal Chotalal Jhaveri in favour of their father in respect of survey No.212, Bodakdev. The petitioners herein therefore submit that they were necessary parties to the revision petition preferred by respondent No.1 to 7. He submits that by the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the application for joining as party. He, therefore, submits that the present Special Civil Application be allowed and the impugned order be set aside and the petitioners be joined as parties/respondents in the Revision No. AMD/316/2022.