NARANBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) How title non-application of mind causes injustice to a party is very much demonstrated and reflected in the orders under challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The factual backdrop behind the present petition may be summarised thus. The predecessor-in-title (the deceased for convenience) of the present petitioners was a tenant of one piece of land bearing survey No. 180 admeasuring 6 acres 20 gunthas situated at village Ganeshpura taluka Vaghodia district Vadodara (the disputed land for convenience) as on 1st April 1957 that is the Tillers Day for the purposes of the Bombay Tenancy and Agriclutural Lands Act 1948 (the Act for brief). He became its deined Purchaser thereunder. He appears to have incurred some debt. Thereupon the Shylock-like lender initiated a proceeding in the competent Civil Court for recovery of his found of flesh from the deceased. That ended in a money-decree in favour of the lender. In execution of that decree the disputed land was attached and sold to the money-lender himself. It appears that the deceased being a poor person walked for some time in fond hope that the disputed land would be returned to him on payment of decretal dues Unfortunatly that hope did not materialise. The deceased was thereupon obliged to move the authority for restoration of possession of the disputed land on the ground that it was in unauthorised occupation of the money-lender. It appears that under some misconception that application was addressed to the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal at Dabhoi (respondent No. 4 herein). It may not be out of place to mention at this stage that the record of the case culminating into the orders under challenge in this petition were called for and on perusal of the record it transpires that the original application was of 11th May 1981 addressed to respondent No. 4 herein with a copy endorsed to the Collector at Vadodara 11 transpires therefrom that the deceased wanted the proceeding to be initiated under Section 84 of the Act. However since it was addressed to respondent No. 4 herein he initiated the proceeding under section 84C of the Act. It came to be registered as Tenancy Case No. 2515 of 1981 By his order passed on 25th June 1981 therein respondent No. 4 came to the conclusion that the sale of the disputed land though through Court was violative of Section 43 of the Act and thereupon its possession by the purchaser was unauthorised Since respondent No. 4 was proceeding under Section 84C of the Act he directed the parties to restore the position of the disputed land as it was originally prior to the sale transaction in question failing which it would be resumed by the government. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. That aggrieved the deceased. He carried the matter in appeal before the Deputy Collector at Dabhoi (the Appellate Authority for convenience) who is respondent No. 3 herein. His appeal came to be registered as Appeal No. 6 of 1983. The purchaser appeared to have adopted the doginmanger attitude by not allowing the deceased to be in possession of the disputed land and as such the former did not carry the matter in appeal By his order passed on 14th March 1984 in the aforesaid appeal respondent No. 3 dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. The aggrieved deceased thereupon unsuccessfully invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) by means of his Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 594 of 1984 By its decision rendered on 23rd October 1985 in the aforesaid revisional application the Tribunal rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. The deceased petitioner thereupon knocked the doors of this Court by means of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-A to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-B to this petition as further affirmed in revision by the impugned decision at Annexure-C to this petition. He breathed his last during the pendency of this petition and his heirs and legal representatives have come on record in his place.

(3.) As pointed out hereinabove the application made by the deceased to respondent No. 4 has been perused by me from the record of the case called for by this Court pursuant to the order passed on 7 October 1993. The tenor thereof leaves no room for doubt that it was an application under Section 84 and (c) of the Act and not under Section 84C thereof. It is not in dispute that the application under Section 84 has to be entertained by the authority named therein or his delegate. I am told at the Bar that the powers to take action under Section 84 of the Act have been delegated to respondent No 3 or other officers equal in his rank Respondent No. 4 has not been delegated with powers to deal with an application under Section 84 of the Act. He has been invested with powers to deal with applications under Section 84C thereof but certainly not with applications under Section 84 thereof. On reading the tenor of the application made by the deceased respondent No. 4 ought to have immediately realised that the deceased prayer was for the reliefs under Section 84 and (c) of the Act and not for the reliefs under Section 84C thereof As pointed out hereinabove respondent No. 4 had no power to deal with the application of the deceased as transpiring from its tenor and as such the former was supposed to return the said application to the deceased for approaching the proper authority for the desired reliefs Respondent No. 4 in the alternative ought to have rejected that application on the ground that it was not within his competence or jurisdiction to entertain it and to grant the desired reliefs. The deceased would then have known what further course of action he had to take in the alternative respondent No. 4 could have forwarded that application to respondent No. 3 or the authority competent or empowered to deal with applications under Section 84 of the Act Instead respondent No. 4 proceeded to deal with the aforesaid application made by the deceased on its own merits It is a sealed principle of law that an authority invested with limited jurisdiction or powers cannot expand its own authority or powers. Since respondent No.4 had no power to deal with any application under Section 84 of the Act he had no business to deal with any such application on merits. His action of dealing with the said application of the deceased on merits is therefore without competence or jurisdiction. The resultant order at Annexure-A to this petition cannot therefore be sustained in law for a moment on the ground that it was null and void. The appellate order at Annexure-B to this petition and the impugned decision at Annexure-C to this petition have merely affirmed the non est order at Annexure-A to this petition and as such they have to be quashed an set aside on that ground alone.