CHHANABHAI G KOLI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI S.B. Suthar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri L.R. Pujari, learned AGP for the respondent State. None for the respondent no.2 though served.

(2.) THE dispute appears to be in narrow compass. Respondent no.2 Society obtained certain land from the State Government and also joined people as its members. The land which was allotted to the Society was allotted by the Society to its members for purposes of cultivation and grazing their cattle. The petitioners were also allotted some land for the said purpose. The petitioners, it appears that because of some dispute between the Society and each member of the Society, were expelled from the membership of the Society. After expelling the petitioners, the Society filed two Civil Suits before the Civil Court, wherein, ultimately it was observed by the Civil Court that the Society would be entitled to crops raised on the said land after making payment of money to each of the petitioners. Thereafter, the suits were withdrawn. In view of the tentative finding recorded by the Civil Court that each of the petitioners was in possession of the property and has raised crops, the petitioners made applications for recording an entry in their favour that they are in possession of the property and have acquired rights over the land. Ultimately, entries were made by the officer and were confirmed by the Mamlatdar in favour of the petitioners. The said entries came to be considered by the Mamlatdar, who, after hearing the parties confirmed the said entries. The Society being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Mamlatdar, preferred an appeal to the Deputy Collector who allowed the same holding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the property as members and as their membership has been terminated, they have no rights in the property and the entries could not be made in their favour. The said order was challenged before the Collector and before the Tribunal, but as the said proceedings proved futile, the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) SHRI Suthar, learned counsel for each of the petitioners submits that the question relating to their expulsion from membership has been challenged by each of the petitioners before the Competent Authority/Forum, therefore, no orders could be made against the interest of the petitioners. His submission is that the entries which were made by the officer and confirmed by the Mamlatdar could not be set aside only on the ground that the petitioners did not continue to be the members of the said Society.