STAE OF GUJARAT Vs. PATEL PARSHOTTAMBHAI DESAIBHAI
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
STATE OF BOMBAY
PATEL PARSHOTTAMBHAI DESAIBHAI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge at Baroda. The appellant before me is the State of Bombay ( now Gujarat ) which was original defendant No. 1. A suit had been filed against the State of Bombay for a declaration that the suit property vested in the plaintiff belongs to the plaintiff and also for a declaration that the decision of the Prant Officer holding that the suit property belonged to the Government was incorrect illegal and not binding on the plaintiff The trial Court Judge held that the property belonged to the plaintiff but he dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred in view of the provisions of section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. He therefore dismissed the suit observing that although the plaintiff had good case on merits his suit should be dismissed as barred under sec. 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act.
(2.) In appeal the learned District Judge at Baroda held that the suit would be barred under section 11 of the Revenue Jurisdiction Act only if the property in respect of which the order related did not vest in the Panchayat. It was conceded before him that the suit should be dismissed if the property did not vest in the dram Panchayat. The learned District Judge therefore remanded the suit to the trial Court to go into the question whether the property vested in the Gram Panchayat or not and he gave a direction that if the property did not vest in the Gram Panchayat the lower Court should dismiss the suit. The State of Gujarat has now come in appeal.
(3.) Section 37 of the Land Revenue Code provides that all public roads etc. and all lands wherever situated which are not the property of individuals or of aggregates of persons legally capable to hold any property shall be the property of the Crown subject to the rights which any person would establish over the same. Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 37 of the Land Revenue Code therefore declares that all the property which does not belong to any individual or an aggregate of persons belongs to the Crown or to the State and the Collector can dispose of such property in such manner as he deems fit. Sub-section (2) of sec. 37 of the said Act provides that if any property or any right in or over any property is claimed by or on behalf of the Crown or by any person as against the Crown it shall be lawful for the Collector or a survey officer after formal inquiry of which due notice has been given to pass an order deciding the claim. Sub-sec. (3) of sec. 37 of the Land Revenue Code provides as follows:-
"Any suit instituted in any Civil Court after the expiration of one year from the date of any order passed under sec. (1) or sub-section (2) or if one or more appeals have been made against such order within the period of limitation then from the date of any order passed by the final appellate authority as determined according to sec. 204 shall be dismissed (although limitation has not been set up as a defence) if the suit is brought to set aside such order or if the relief claimed is inconsistent with such order provided that in the case of an order sub-sec. (2) the plaintiff has due notice of such order". Sub-sec. (4) of sec. 37 of the said Act provides as follows:-
"Any person shall be deemed to have had due notice of an inquiry or order under this section if notice thereof has been given in accordance with rules made in this behalf by the Provincial Government". Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act reads as follows:- No Civil Court shall entertain any suit against the Government on account of any act or omissiOn of any Revenue Officer unless the plaintiff first proves that previously to bringing his suit 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 suit it was possible to present.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.