KALI BHANGABHAI V Vs. KOLI BHURABHAI VAJABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 14/12/1987 of the Deputy Collector, Vadodara at Annexure 'A' to the petition in fragmentation case No. 26/86, and the order of the State Government dated 15.6.1988 at Annexure 'B' to the petition, rejecting the petitioners, revision application and confirming the order of the Deputy Collector.

(2.) According to the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 who is the elder brother of the respondent No. 1 had sold the land bearing Survey No. 45 to the petitioner No. 1 by an oral agreement for a consideration of Rs. 3,600/- and handed over possession therefore to the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 has thereafter been cultivating the land. The respondent No. 1 was a minor at the relevant time, as stated in the petition. According to the petitioners, they are owners of Survey No. 55 in which there is a well. The petitioners had spent a sum of Rs. 18,000/- for laying down a pipeline for getting water from survey No. 55 to Survey No. 45 so that they could cultivate survey No. 45. About four years prior to the filing of the petition, a well was constructed in survey No. 45 in which a considerable amount was spent. The Deputy Collector, Chhota Udepur had issued notice to the petitioner No. 1 and in those proceedings, he came to a finding that the transfer of the said land was contrary to the provision of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation & Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, and therefore, void as per Sec. 9(1) thereof. The consequential orders under Sec. 9(2) and 9(3) imposing fine and summary eviction of the petitioner No. 1 were also made. 2.1 Against that decision, the petitioners filed a revision application before the State Government, which was rejected for the reasons mentioned in the order, a copy which is at Annexure 'B' to the petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that a huge investment was made by the petitioners by sinking a well in the land which was purchased by the petitioner No. 1. It was also contended that the powers under Sec. 9 could not have been exercised by the Deputy Collector after an inordinate delay of nearly 29 years. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Ranchhodbhai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 25(2) GLR 1225, in which it was held that on the peculiar facts of that case, it had got to be held that the powers exercised by the concerned authorities under Sec. 9 was at grossly belated stage and that the exercise of powers was exfacie unreasonable, unjust and illegal. It was also tried to be contended on behalf of the petitioners that survey No.55 belonging to the petitioners was contiguous to survey No. 45, and therefore, the transfer could not be said to be void.