JAYANTIBHAI JOITARAM PATEL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, which is styled as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the following substantive reliefs;

(2.) THE facts of the case as stated in the petition are that the petitioners are residents of village Piplavala Vas, Bopal, Taluka: Daskroi, District: Ahmedabad and are cultivating lands bearing Survey No.317/2, Block No.435 and Blocks No.600, 600-A and 600-B respectively of village Bopal, District: Ahmedabad. The petitioners' grandfather Shri Damodarbhai had agricultural lands, which were ancestral properties. During the life time of Damodarbhai, a partition took place between two brothers in respect of the properties of Damodarbhai on 7th February, 1968, pursuant to which, certain parts of the above lands came in the share of the father of the petitioners. The entry was certified in the year 1969, which according to the petitioners, clearly indicates that Joitaram Nanalal-Damodarbhai had certain share in the property bearing Survey No.317/2- Block No.435 of village Bopal (hereinafter referred to as "the subject land"). According to the petitioners, the subject land was not the individual property of Joitaram, but was of the ownership of all the members of the family, wherein the major as well as the minor members had a share. It is alleged that the respondents No. 3 to 5 and, more particularly, respondent No.5 created forged signatures of their father and his brother Surendrabhai and created forged signatures of the witnesses, who had signed in the sale-deed before the Registrar and that such forged sale-deed was prepared on 16th December, 1980 and was got registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, 16th Ahmedabad on December, 1980, whereby the land bearing Survey No.317/2, Block No.425 of Bopal was fraudulently transferred in the name of the respondent No.5-Gautambhai Mohanbhai Prajapati.

(3.) IT is further the case of the petitioners that respondent No.5 was not an agriculturist and that the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal-respondent No.2 herein (hereinafter referred to as the Mamlatdar and ALT) before certifying the entry, gave several opportunities to the respondent No.5 to produce the sale-deed or to prove that he is an agriculturist and initiated proceedings under section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act"), which culminated into an order dated 23rd February, 1987 holding that there was a breach of the provisions of section 63 of the Tenancy Act and directing that the subject land be confiscated to the State Government as the purchaser- respondent No.5 was not an agriculturist. It is further the case of the petitioners that their father expired on 3rd December, 1988 and later on they learnt about order passed by the Deputy Collector and came to know that the respondents No.3 to 5 had preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector, wherein neither the petitioners nor their deceased father had received notices and that the Deputy Collector had passed an order dated 16th December, 1989 against a dead person, in view of the fact that the petitioners' father had expired much prior to the date of passing of the said order. It is the case of the petitioners that they were not aware of the aforesaid order made by the Deputy Collector and, hence, could not challenge the same at the relevant point of time. Upon coming to know about the said order, the petitioners applied for a certified copy on 22nd December, 2005 and preferred a revision application, being Revision Application No. TEN/BA/55 of 2006, before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). In the said proceedings, respondent No.5 appeared and produced copies of the orders passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Applications No.115 and 116 of 1994 and alleged that the petitioners had previously preferred two revision applications against the orders passed by the Deputy Collector, which had been rejected. It is the case of the petitioners that they had never filed such revision applications nor had they authorised the concerned advocate to make such applications and that it was the private respondents had filed the said revision applications and had, accordingly, committed the offence of impersonation. They, therefore, requested that action be taken against the private respondents under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further the case of the petitioners that one Arvindbhai Patel, a cousin of the petitioners, instituted a suit being Civil Suit No.168 of 2006 against the petitioners for partition of their lands, including the subject land. However, without considering the documents placed on record by the petitioners and without considering the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners in true spirit, the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 28th March, 2007, rejected the said revision application. It is further averred in the petition that a criminal complaint has also been filed against the private respondents, which is annexed as Annexure- J to the petition. Being aggrieved by the above referred orders passed by the Deputy Collector and the Tribunal, the petitioners have approached this court by way of the present petition.