NARANBHAI PRAGDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd January 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.464 of 2001 whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the petition filed by the petitioners.

(2.) The appellants - original petitioners are the co-owners of the land bearing Survey No. 232, admeasuring 151 Acre-22 Gunthas, situated at village-Motajampur, Taluka-Kankrej, District-Banaskantha. They have challenged the order dated 20th March, 1998, made by the Mamlatdar & ALT in Ceiling Case No. 1/95, which was confirmed in Appeal No.2/98 by the Deputy Collector, Tharad, on 12th January, 1999, and further confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 30th October, 2000, in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/122-99. The case of the appellants was that they do not belong to the same family i.e. they belong to different communities, they neither have common residence, nor common ancestry i.e. the they were not joint in estate by custom or by usage. They, therefore, should be held to have possessed the land as co-owners and each of them should be individually held to have held 1/4 of the land. If the holding of each of the appellants is considered in the above manner, neither of the appellants could have been held to have possessed land in excess of the ceiling under the Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(3.) The proceedings under the Act were initiated in the year 1967 and the matter had reached upto the Revenue Tribunal. Twice the matter had to be remanded to the authorities below. After the first order of remand, once again the matter was decided against the present petitioners i.e. it was held that the petitioners held the land jointly and the same can not be divided into share of each of the petitioners. The matter was carried upto the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/375-88, which was decided on 28th February, 1994. The very issue was raised before the Tribunal in Revision Application also. The learned Tribunal, considering the judgment of this court in Special Civil Application No. 5276/93, negatived the contention and expressly rejected the same. However, the Tribunal found certain procedural irregularities and remanded the matter to comply with the procedure provided for in sections 13 and 20 of the Act. After the remand, the matter was once again carried upto the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/122-99. The contentions raised by the petitioners were once again rejected by the learned Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 30th October, 2000. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the petition before the learned Single Judge, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the issue was finally decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 28th February 1994, which was not challenged further and the same has become final.