THAKORE RAVESINH AMARSINH Vs. DIVALIBEN MOTIBHAI PATELIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts leading to this petition are as under :- One Motibhai Bapuji was the owner of the fields bearing Survey Nos. 179/11, 180/1, 181/4, 179/1 and 181/14 situated in the sim of Kadachhala, Ta: Lunawada, Dist : Panch Mahals. Said Motibhai wanted to sell said lands and, therefore, he made application to the Secretary, Revenue Department on 10-3-1969 seeking permission to sell these lands. Thereafter, said Motibhai agreed to sell the lands to the petitioner. During the course of inquiry held by the Circle Inspector, Motibhai showed his willingness to sell the lands to the petitioner at the price fixed by the Government. Thereafter, at the instance of said Motibhai, the petitioner paid Vadilal Chunilal Rs. 1873-75 ps. on behalf of Motibhai towards sale price of the aforesaid lands on 31-12-1969 and the possession of the said fileds was handed over to the petitioner on the same day. By the resolution dated 21-1-1970, the Government gave permission to Motibhai Bapuji to sell the fields to the petitioner for Rs. 2072-35 on condition that he should pay to the Government Rs. 518-60 from the sale price. The petitioner, thereupon, paid said amount of Rs. 518-60 to the Government on 9-3-1970 and consequently name of the petitioner was entered in the record of rights. In the meantime, said Motibhai Bapuji died without executing and registering the saledeed and Somabhai who was the only son of Motibhai Bapuji refused to execute the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed suit for permanent injunction restraining Somabhai Motibhai from interfering with the possession of the petitioner. The suit was ultimately allowed by the District Court, Panch Mahals by its judgment and order dated 4-12-1975. Thereafter, on 25-2-1975 Somabhai executed a sale-deed in favour of the petitioner regarding the aforesaid fields and the same was registered on 13-6-1975. Thereafter, Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act, 1976 came into force. In 1981, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who are widow, 2 daughters of Motibhai and wife of Somabhai respectively, moved application under the Act of 1976 for discharging their alleged debt due to them. The Debt Settlement Officer, without notice to the petitioner, by holding the applicants to be the marginal farmers, allowed the application and exhonerated them from payment of the said debt. The petitioner having come to know about the order, moved an appeal before the District Registrar (Co-operative Societies)- respondent No. 5 who dismissed the appeal on 30-3-1982. Hence this petition.

(2.) No return has been filed inspite of notice served on the respondents. The aforesaid facts which have been stated on oath in the petition, have not been denied. Accepting the unrebutted facts as stated above to be correct, in my opinion, no reasonable person can come to the conclusion that deceased Motibhai Bapuji was indebted to the petitioner and that the lands were transferred to him, with the permission of the Government for sale of lands, Motibhai agreed to sell the same. It is also apparent that Debt Settlement Officer who was to decide the application of the applicants-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 quasi-judicially, has passed the order without issuing notice to the petitioner acted in breach of the principles of natural justice rendering the order void. The appellate authority too has failed to consider that the sale was effected at the request of the farmer after obtaining permission from the Government and it cannot be said that it attracts provisions of the Act of 1976. Obviously, it appears that by some method or the others, the heirs of said Motibhai wanted to come out of said transaction entered into by Motibhai. Firstly, it was resisted by the son of Motibhai. He having failed in his attempts, supported the decree of civil suit and executed sale-deed, prompted respondents -legal heirs to move application under the Act of 1976 after five years of the commencement of the Act of 1976 for regaining the possession of the land in question from the petitioner. The chronology of the facts of the present case leave no doubt in my mind that it was calculated abuse of process of course and of law by the respondents which the appellate authority failed to see. Moreover, the Act applies to existing debts and not to debts which have been discharged.

(3.) For the reasons aforesaid, this petition deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the orders of the Debt Settlement Officer dated 5-12-1981 and the appellate authority dated 30-3-1982 at Annexures A and B respectively are hereby quashed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.