TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the then State Government and proceeding of entrustment of properties to the petitioner was initiated. In that view of the matter, the petitioner withdrew said Succession Application No.34 of 1995 for issuance of succession certificate due to decision of earlier State Government of handing over movable and immovable property to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has relinquished his right to get succession certificate. It also appears that the next government had stayed the proceedings and intimated the Collector to keep inabayance of the order and granting the properties in favour of the deceased petitioner. Upon considering the averments made in the affidavit in reply it clearly appears that at no point of time any opportunity was given to the petitioner. It is tried law that any order affecting any legal rights of any person, an opportunity of being heard needs to be granted especially when there is one order passed in his favour in respect of moveable or immovable property and the same order has partly implemented - the respondents are hereby directed to give appropriate opportunity to the petitioners of being heard for cancellation of the order of granting moveable a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the facts and circumstances of the case deem fit and proper; and (F) To provide for the costs of this petition. 2. The brief facts of the petitioner s case is that the properties in question were originaly private properties of Guru Keshavdas, and after the death of Guru Keshavdas, Guru Karsandas became the Mahant and succeeded the properties under his Will. On the death of Guru Karsandas his chela Guru Atmaram became Mahant and succeeded to the properties of Guru Karsandas under his Will dated 08.12.1941. Thereafter, Guru Atmaram died leaving his Will dated 06.05.1947, appointing Guru Ranchhodas as Chela. 2.1 The petitioners challenged the application no. 180/47-48 passed by the Second Class Magistrate Baroda held that Ranchhodas was shishya and heir of Guru Atmaram. However, the then District Magistrate set aside the order of 2nd Class Magistrate. The District Judge by order dated 20.01.1959 held that Guru Ranchoddas had failed to prove that he was shishya of Guru Atmaram. Against that the petitioner has filed Civil Suit No.659/1959 on 01.05.1959, which came to be finally disposed of by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 27.11.1986, in appeal filed by Guru Ranc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r no.1. Accordingly, the respondent no.2 took steps to get the properties and entered into petitioner no.1 name village of revenue record and instucted the tenants in the properties to deal with the petitioner no.1 as landlord. 2.4 It is contended that the Income Tax officer had issued notice under section 211 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 raising several demands agreegating to the tune of ₹ 11,43,582/- against the estate of Guru Atmaram and directed to pay within a period of five days. Pursuant to that, Mamlatdar, Vadodara City by his letter dated 12.02.1998 requested the Tressury Officer to pass appropriate order for withdrawal of amount of ₹ 19 lacs, from the Government of Gujarat in favour of the petitioner no.1. The Additional Treasury Officer had informed the Mamlatdar of Vadodara to obtain sanction of the Government as the period of more than five years has lapsed after the sum has been deposited. Simultaneously, the Mamlatdar of Vadodara City passed a letter dated 19.02.1998, informing the Collector that proceedings were being taken to entrust all immovable propoerties and cash of Ramji mandir under his office order dated 27.01.1998 and other cash amounts had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for declaring that he is the only shishya of deceased Mahant Atmaramdasji and as such he is entitled heir to inherrit the properties and seeking restrining the State for interfering with the possession of property. It is also declared to the effect that he has become the owner of the said property as mentioned in the plaint. The trial Court held that Mahant Ranchhodas has failed to prove that he was a shishya or legal heir to inherit the properties of Mahant Atmaramdasji, accordingly, the suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiff had filed appeal before the District Court, which allowed the appeal and set aside the decre of the trial Judge. The State Government has challenged the same by way of Second Appeal no.757 of 1966 before this Court. This Court had allowed the Second Appeal and set aside the decree of District Court and restored the decree of trial Court. Against that Mahant Ranchhodas filed Civil Appeal no. 351 of 1973 before the Apex Court, challenging the order passed by this Court in second appeal. The Apex Court had upheld the observations of this Court that the appellant therein has not been able to prove himself as chela of Mahant Atmaramdasji. It is also submitted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Atmaram but also the government has assessed the property as unclaimed property. It appears that initially the order of handing over the moveable and immoveable property including the cash amount was passed by the earlier government and the cheque was also issued in favour of the original petitioner no.1, who had died during the pendency of the petition. 8. It is pertinent to note that the deceased petitioner was declared to be a Chela or heir of Guru Ranchhoddas by his Will dated 12.2.1978. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Civil Judge for Succession Certificate by filing Succession Application No.34 of 1995. Pending that application, decision to hand over the movable and immovable property in favour of the petitioner was taken by the then State Government and proceeding of entrustment of properties to the petitioner was initiated. In that view of the matter, the petitioner withdrew said Succession Application No.34 of 1995 for issuance of succession certificate due to decision of earlier State Government of handing over movable and immovable property to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has relinquished his right to get succession certificate. 9. It al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
