CHANDRIKABEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

(2.) The appellants herein are challenging the interim order dtd. 18/10/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge staying the operation of the order dtd. 6/8/2022 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, on the premise that in the order impugned, the Mamlatdar & ALT has returned a categorical finding that fraud had been committed by the writ-petitioners in getting the sale deed dtd. 2/11/1999 and the Entry No.7185, in the revenue records based on the said sale deed. It is argued by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants herein that the remedy of filing statutory appeal against the order dtd. 6/8/2022 under Sec. 74 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act 1948, against the order of the Mamlatdar & ALT dtd. 6/8/2022 was available to the writ-petition. In the said scenario, there was no justification before the learned Single Judge to entertain the writ-petition when specific objection was raised with regard to the availability of the alternate remedy. Further, with the support of the decision of the Apex Court in 2019 (14) SCC 449, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that any judgment or order, or decision of any competent authority or even a revenue entry, which is a result of fraud committed by a person, cannot be allowed to stand. For the findings returned by the Mamlatdar in the order dtd. 6/8/2022 about the fraud committed by the writ- petitioners, there was no justification to pass the interim order staying the effect of the order of the Mamlatdar, whereby the land in question, subject matter of sale deed dtd. 2/11/1999 has been restored back to the appellants.

(3.) Taking note of the above contentions of the learned Senior counsel for the appellants, we may record that the appellants herein are the vendors of the sale deed, subject matter of consideration, pursuant to which the entry No.7185 was made in the revenue records. The proceedings under Sec. 84 (C) of the Tenancy Act 1948 had been initiated at the instance of the appellants herein in the year 2019, on the ground that the writ-petitioners/vendees of the sale deed dtd. 2/11/1999 were not agriculturists at the time of the execution of the sale deed. The contention was that the sale deed dtd. 2/11/1999 was executed in breach of Sec. 863 of the Tenancy Act 1948.