Girishbhai Natwarlal Shah vs State of Gujarat

Ms. Bela M. Trivedi, J. (Oral)—With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter was heard finally at the admission stage.

The order under challenge is the order dated 11.12.2014 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner who was the respondent No. 4 raising objection against the withdrawal of the Revision Application No. TEN B.A. No. 214 of 2009 filed by the respondent No. 3 - Ashokbhai Ochchavlal Parikh (original Revisionist) challenging the order dated 30.06.1986 passed by the Deputy Collector declaring the deceased Bai Zevar respondent No. 5 as the tenant in respect of the land in question originally belonging to the respondent No. 4 Ratibai Ardesar Fitter.

After having heard the learned counsels for the parties at length, it appears that the respondent No. 3 (original Revisionist) had sought permission to withdraw the said revision, against which the present petitioner, who was impleaded as respondent No. 4 in Revision application, had raised the objections, and had also prayed to transpose him as the party Revisionist in the said revision application. The Tribunal vide the impugned order rejected the said application, and permitted the respondent No.3 to withdraw the Revision application. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

Without going into the merits of the case, it appears from the impugned order itself that though the petitioner had prayed for two prayers - one, seeking rejection of the withdrawal application filed by the Revisionist Ashokbhai, and second to permit to him to transpose him as Revisionist, the Tribunal has not considered the prayer with regard to the permission for transposition of the petitioner as the party Revisionist in the Revision application. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has dealt with the issue as to whether the respondent No.3 should be permitted to withdraw the Revision application or not but not decided the issue whether the petitioner should be permitted to be transposed as the Revisionist or not. Though it is sought to be submitted by learned advocate Mr. Unwala for the respondent No. 5.2 and 5.3, who are the legal heirs of deceased Bai Zaver, that the petitioner did not have any right to be transposed as the Revisionist, and the Tribunal by rejecting her application raising the objection against withdrawal of the Revision application filed by the respondent No. 3 - Ashokbhai had impliedly rejected the prayer of transposition, the said submission cannot be accepted. When the petitioner who was the respondent No. 4 in the Revision application, was claiming his right as an assignee by virtue of an assignment deed allegedly executed by respondent No. 3 in his favour, and when the petitioner had made specific prayer in the application for transposing him as the Revisionist while praying for rejecting the withdrawal application of the respondent No. 3 Ashokbhai, the Tribunal was obliged to decide the issue whether the prayer of the petitioner for transposing him as the revisionist was required to be allowed or not. There being no discussion or finding with regard to the said prayer made by the present petitioner, in the opinion of the Court, the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the said application of the petitioner afresh, and in accordance with law.

In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the application of the petitioner afresh, and in accordance with law. It is clarified that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

The petition is allowed accordingly.