GANDAJI R.THAKOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein are original plaintiffs whereas respondent being original defendant is State of Gujarat. The appellants are challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.7.1994 in Regular Civil Appeal No.134 of 1986 by 2nd Jt.District Judge of Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur. By such impugned judgment, the District Court has while allowing the appeal, reversed the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1986 in Regular Civil Suit No.3 of 1981 by the Civil Judge (S.D.) of Ahmedabad (Rural). Therefore, the ultimate result is now to the effect that though the suit of the appellants was decreed by the Civil Court, the same stood dismissed by the impugned judgment, which is under challenge in such Second Appeal. While admitting the appeal in the year 1995, this Court has framed a substantial question of law to be decided in this appeal as under: -

(2.) If we consider the factual details, the appellants - plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of declaration and injunction that the order No.CB/LND/C/379 dated 14.10.1980 by the Collector, Ahmedabad, is illegal, arbitrary, malicious and not binding on the plaintiffs and also to restrain the defendant and its Officer from executing the said order in any manner against the plaintiff. Therefore, prima facie it becomes clear that the suit is challenging the order of the Collector, which was passed in his capacity as a Revenue Officer and thereby, it is a quasi judicial order. So far as factual details are concerned, it is appellant's case that he is holding land bearing S.No.335 at Ranip Village in City and Taluka of Ahmedabad as inherited from his ancestors, but the revenue authority has played mischief in revenue record at the lower level and thereby, land was endorsed as of restricted tenure by mutation entry No.1000 dated 30.5.1956. It is further contended that no notification was ever issued as required u/s.73(A) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code ('Code', for short) and therefore, in absence of any legal permission u/s.135(J) of the Code, said entry could not be considered as a true and genuine entry and therefore, tenure of the land cannot be converted. It is further contended that because of such lawful entry, request to convert such land for non - agricultural purpose was lawfully denied. It is further contended that Collector has not fixed the premium and issued the notice for forfeiting the land.

(3.) However, the most crucial issue in the appeal and entire litigation, right from the Civil Court uptil such appeal, is to the effect that whether quasi judicial order of revenue authority can be challenged before the Civil Court or not. It is also evident from record that, initially, the matter was remanded back by the Secretary (Appeal) for reconsideration by the Collector, but thereafter, when revenue authority has passed an order dated 14.10.1980, instead of challenging said order in proper hierarchy of litigation under the revenue laws, the plaintiff has all of a sudden preferred a Civil Suit contending that such entry dated 14.10.1980 is illegal, arbitrary, malicious and not binding on the plaintiff. Now, when the Appellate Court has by impugned judgment held that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide such issue and to grant such relief because of the provisions of the then Revenue Jurisdiction Act, the appellant has challenged such judgment in this appeal. At present, the Gujarat Revenue Jurisdiction Act ('Act', for short) is applicable, which is pari materia same to the provisions of the old Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act; wherein, Section 11 provides that - "No Civil Court shall entertain any Civil Suit against the Government on account of any act or omission of any Revenue Officer unless the plaintiff first proves that previously to bring his suits he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, as within the period of limitation allowed for bringing such suits it was possible to present." Section 6 of the same Act also bars certain suits against Revenue Officers when it provides that Revenue Officers shall not be liable to be sued for damages in any Civil Court for any act bonafide done or ordered to be done by them in pursuance of the provisions of any law for the time being in force. Whereas, Sections 4 and 5 also bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court in certain cases. Clause (D) of Section 4 confirms that Civil Courts shall not exercise jurisdiction in a scheme against the Government with respect to claims against the Government regarding any entry made in record of revenue survey. In view of such restriction, practically, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to directly entertain a suit against an order of a revenue authority and more particularly, with reference to revenue entry of particular land for which there are provisions in the law to challenge such order before higher authority under revenue laws upto the Secretary (Appeals) and order of Secretary (Appeals) are generally challenged before High Court since there were three levels of hierarchy in such jurisdiction upto the High Court.