TANSUKH SAMJU SAVALIYA Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri P.J. Kanabar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri M.R. Mengdey, learned AGP for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.92 passed in Land-4-Appeal-128/92 by the Collector, Junagadh and the order dated 14.11.1996 passed in SRC-JND-HKP-7/93 by the Deputy Secretary [Appeals], Revenue Department are before this Court with a complaint that the authorities could not set aside the order dated 16th January, 1991 passed by the Deputy Collector, Junagadh in RRT/Revision/No.7/88.

(3.) The short facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that one Vrajlal Bhagvanjii Dhakan, opponent no.3 before the Deputy Collector, was indebted to the Sales Tax Department as the Department was to recover certain dues. As the said Vrajlal Bhagvanji Dhakan did not discharge his liability, proceedings under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code were initiated against him. Notices were issued to the said Vrajlal Bhagvanji Dhakan on 20.12.84 under Section 200 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. However, no attachment order was issued nor restraint order was made against the said Vrajlal Dhakan. It appears that on 2.1.85, the said Vrajlal Dhakan sold the land in dispute to the present petitioners. Almost after about one year and five months of the said sale, order of attachment was issued. As the petitioners had already purchased the property and became owner, nothing was required to be done in the matter, but proceedings were initiated before the Deputy Collector, Junagadh on the ground that the sale was illegal. The petitioners appeared before the authority and contended that before the order of attachment or any restraint order was passed against the transfer of the land, the said original owner Vrajlal Dhakan was entitled to alienate the property and in any case, even if certain dues were to be discharged, sale wold not become void or voidable at the instance of the department. However, the Deputy Collector held that there was genuine sale and the petitioners had become owner of the property. Sales Tax Officer, being aggrieved by the said order of the Deputy Collector filed the above referred appeal which was allowed on 22nd December, 1992 and as the revision against the said order proved futile, the petitioners are before this Court.