BABUBHAI HIRABHAI Vs. CITY DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Advocate Shri A.J.Patel is appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ld. AGP Shri M.A.Patel is appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The present Special Civil Application arises out of an ultimate order dated 25.5.1988 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. SRD/CON/257/1986.

(3.) The facts of the present petition in short are that the petitioners are members of the Joint Hindu United Family of petitioner no.1. The petitioner no.1 being the Head and Karta of the said family, wanted to manage the affairs of the said Joint Hindu Family of the petitioners of which petitioner no.1 was the Karta. The said Joint Hindu Family owned and possessed land bearing Survey No. 274/2 admeasuring Acres 1.12 gunthas and Survey No. 275/2 admeasuring Acre 0.20 gunthas situated in the sim of Village Ghatlodiya, Taluka City District Ahmedabad. The said lands were running in the name of the petitioners in the Revenue Records. According to the petitioner on account of internal family arrangements amongst the members of the family it was decided to get the names of all the male members of the family entered in respect of land bearing S.NO. 274/2 in the Revenue Records and to get the names of the female members of the family entered in the revenue records in respect of the other survey nos. i.e. S.No. 275/2. The said decision was taken because the first petitioner was keeping indifferent health but in fact no division by metes or bounds was ever effected in respect of the said lands and the lands remained undivided and unpartitioned. Therefore, the application was given to the Talati of the village and the names of the petitioner no.1 to 6 were accordingly entered in the Pani Patrak in respect of land bearing S.No. 274/2 and names of the petitioners no.7 and 8 were entered in the Pani Patrak in respect of land bearing Survey No. 275/2. It is pertinent to note that the land in question were not divided by metes and bounds and lands continued to be in their pristine position and no division as contemplated under Section 8 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was effected. However, the Respondent Revenue Authorities had issued a notice under Section 9 of the Act to the petitioners alleging breach of Section 8 of the Act. The said notice was replied by the petitioners and they appeared and interalia contended that there was no violation of any of the provisions of the Act and because of the family arrangements, the lands were mutated in the names of 2 sets of member of the family in the Revenue Records without actually dividing the land without metes and bounds which will attract the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the request was made by the petitioners to drop the said proceedings. But the respondent authority by order dated 21.5.1986 cancellation of mutation entries no.2435 and 2185 and also directed the petitioners to pay penalty of Rs.250.00 and also ordered restoration of possession. Being aggrieved by the said order of the respondent authority, the petitioners preferred a Revision Application No. SRD/CON/257/1986 before the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeal) Revenue Department, Ahmedabad. According to the petitioners before the Appellate Authority, the two decisions of this Court given in Special Civil Application No. 1934 of 1979 and Special Civil Application No. 662 of 1971 were produced by the petitioners. Not only that, the oral arguments were advanced on 13.4.1987 and subsequently the written arguments were submitted on 3.6.1988 to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has not decided immediately but after long time on 25.5.1988 (back date) dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner.