UKABHAI RANCHODBHAI vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

C/SCA/8214/2013 CAV JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8214 of 2013

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI Sd/-

========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? No ========================================================== UKABHAI RANCHODBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 other(s) ========================================================== Appearance: MR PJ KANABAR for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. JYOTI BHATT, AGP, for the Respondent(s) No. 1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,5 NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,6 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

Date : 08/08/2019

CAV JUDGMENT 1. The

original

petitioner

Ukabhai Ranchodbhai (now deceased) had filed the petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Page 1 of 9

C/SCA/8214/2013 CAV JUDGMENT Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 14.02.2013 passed by the respondent No. 1 – Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'the S.S.R.D.'), in Revision Application No. 8 of 2009 filed under Rule 108(6-A) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'), whereby the S.S.R.D. had partly allowed the said Revision Application by confirming the order dated 07.07.2008 passed by the Collector, Amreli in Revision Application 311 of 2006, so far as it cancelled the entries No. 118, 154 and 181 in the revenue record of Village Khera, Taluka Rajula, and set aside the said order, so far as it directed to enter the name of the Government, in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 70/1 paiki admeasuring 3 hectare 90 Are 52 sq. mtrs. 2. The Coordinate Bench vide the order dated 03.05.2013, while issuing the notice to the respondents, had granted an ad-interim relief staying the said impugned order dated 14.02.2013 passed by the S.S.R.D. as well as the order dated 07.07.2008 made by the Collector, Amreli. It is pertinent to note that thereafter the petition was dismissed for default vide order dated 17.04.2014, and Ad-interim relief had stood vacated. The petition, thereafter was restored to its original file as per the order dated 26.04.2019 passed in the Misc. Civil Page 2 of 9

C/SCA/8214/2013 CAV JUDGMENT Application (For Restoration) No. 1 of 2019 filed in the present petition. Meaning thereby, the petition remained dismissed for default for about 5 years from 17.04.2014 to 26.04.2019, and during the said period, the ad-interim relief granted by the Court, had also remained vacated. It is also further pertinent to note that during the said period, the original petitioner – Ukabhai Ranchodbhai also expired in the year 2016 and the Misc. Civil Application for restoration was filed by the legal heirs of the said deceased petitioner – Ukabhai Ranchodbhai, however no application for bringing the legal heirs of the said Ukabhai on record has been made in the main petition, nor is there any order passed by the Court setting aside the abatement which had taken place on account of the death of the original petitioner. Hence, the petition, as such, has stood abated as the sole petitioner had expired in the year 2016 and his legal heirs have not been brought on record. 3. It was sought to be submitted by the Learned advocate Mr. Kanabar for the petitioner that since the application for restoration of the petition was filed by the legal heirs, they are deemed to have been brought on record on the said application having been granted by the Court. The Court does not agree with the said submission as unless there is specific order passed by the Court, the abatement does not get Page 3 of 9

C/SCA/8214/2013 CAV JUDGMENT automatically set aside nor the legal heirs could be said to have been permitted to be brought on record of the petition. In any case, even if it is believed that the said legal heirs are deemed to have been brought on record, then also the Court does not find any substance in the petition for the following reasons. 4. From the bare memorandum of the petition, it appears that the petitioner had not disclosed correct facts as to how he became the owner of the land in question. The petitioner had not even bothered to produce on record the order dated 07.07.2008 passed by the Collector, which was partly confirmed and partly set aside by the S.S.R.D. in the impugned order, though the petitioner had sought interim relief for staying both the orders i.e. the order dated 07.07.2008 passed by the Collector and the order dated 14.02.2013 passed by the S.S.R.D., as transpiring from the order dated 03.05.2013 passed by the Coordinate Bench. 5. The petitioner had also not bothered to produce on record the relevant entries being No. 118, 154 and 181 in respect of the land in question, which have been set aside by the Collector in his order dated 07.07.2008 and which part of the order has been confirmed by the S.S.R.D. When the S.S.R.D. had confirmed the order of the Collector setting aside the Page 4 of 9

C/SCA/8214/2013 CAV JUDGMENT entries in question and when the petitioner was challenging the same by way of filing the petition, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to produce along with the petition not only the order of the Collector but also the copies of the entries in question. Thus, the petition filed by the petitioner not only lacks basic facts and particulars but also the relevant documents. 6. It is needless to say that the parties who invokes extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is supposed to disclose all the material facts and particulars as well as the necessary documents, failing which the petition would be liable to be dismissed. Beneficial reference of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.D. Sharma versus Steel Authority of India Limited and Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481, be made in this regard, in which it has been observed as under : - “38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play 'hide and seek' or to 'pick and choose' the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose Page 5 of 9

C/SCA/8214/2013 CAV JUDGMENT (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material

facts

are

suppressed

or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts

and

exercise

would

become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, "the Court knows law but not facts". 39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commissioners is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and 'clean breast' cannot hold a writ of the Court with 'soiled hands'. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court.” 7. In view of the above, since the petitioner has not disclosed the correct and material facts, the petition does not deserve any further consideration. In any case, the Court also does not find any substance in the merits of the petition. Having regard to the impugned order passed by the S.S.R.D., it transpires that the land in question was originally allotted to one Page 6 of 9

C/SCA/8214/2013 CAV JUDGMENT Ranchodbhai Sodhabhai, father of the petitioner Ukabhai in the year 1956 for reclamation, however, the said Ranchodbhai having expired, the land was sold out by the petitioner Ukabhai in the year 1958 to one Mandalbhai Nathubhai by executing registered sale deed in respect of which the entry No. 181 was made on 27.02.1990. Since the said sale was in breach of the condition on which the land was allotted, the Assistant Collector had proposed the Collector to take the said entry in the revision, and therefore, the Collector had in suo moto revision set aside the said entry No. 181 and also the connected entries No. 118 and 154 made in respect of the said land. The Collector also directed to vest the said land in favour of the Government. The S.S.R.D. in the impugned order confirmed the order of the Collector so far as the entries in question were cancelled, however, set aside the said order so far as it directed to vest the land in favour of the Government, and further observed that the Collector could initiate separate proceedings under Section 79-A of the Land Revenue Code after issuing show- cause notice to the petitioner. The said order passed by the S.S.R.D. being absolutely just and proper, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Kanabar for the petitioner relying upon the decisions of this Page 7 of 9

C/SCA/8214/2013 CAV JUDGMENT Court in the case of Rajeshbhai Vithalbhai Patel versus State of Gujarat and others reported in 2016(4) GLR 3499 and in the case of Rinki Shashikant Gandhi versus Mamlatdar, Vadodara Taluka and others reported in 2012(2) GLR 1275 submitted that the S.S.R.D. should not have permitted the Collector to initiate the proceedings under Section 79-A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code after such a long time while partly setting aside the Collector's order. The Court does not find any merit in the said submission. If the S.S.R.D. had directed the Collector to follow the procedure before directing to vest land in favour of the Government, there could not have been any grievance on the part of the petitioner. Even otherwise, from the petition itself, it is culled out that there was delay on the part of the petitioner to challenge the order of the Collector before the S.S.R.D., and in the meantime, the land having vested in Government, was allotted part thereof to some other person. If the petitioner was aggrieved by such action, he could have challenged such proceeding in accordance with law. So far as the impugned order passed by the S.S.R.D. is concerned, the Court does not find any illegality and infirmity in the said order. 9. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Notice is Page 8 of 9

C/SCA/8214/2013 CAV JUDGMENT discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. Sd/- (BELA M. TRIVEDI, J) AMAR SINGH Page 9 of 9