VIMALCHAND UDAYCHAND Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the land bearing Survey No. 58, admeasuring 1 Acre 2 gunthas of Village Chharodi, Taluka Dascroi, District Ahmedabad was owned and possessed by one Bhikaji Lalji Thakore. As the petitioners were closely associated with the said Bhikaji Lalji Thakore, he bequeathed the aforesaid land to the petitioners by a Will, executed on 09.04.1964. After the execution of the will, Bhikaji Lalji Thakore expired on 30.11.1964. The petitioners, on the basis of the Will executed by Bhikaji Lalji Thakore, preferred an application before the Revenue Authority for entering the revenue entry in the record of rights of the said bequeathed property in village form no. 6, 7/12, 8 etc. As the entry in the record of rights was not mutated, the petitioners preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 105/89 before the District Court, Ahmedabad for obtaining a probate of the said Will, which was dismissed by the District Court, Ahmedabad. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred Appeal from Order No. 489/1990 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 10.12.1990 allowed the said appeal and granted probate in favour of the petitioners. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the District Court, Ahmedabad vide order dated 16.03.1992 granted probate in respect of the Will executed in favour of the petitioners.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. From the record it transpires that the land in question was a new tenure land and as the petitioners being non agriculturist, they were not entitled to hold the land in dispute, bequeathed to them by a Will. Looking to the facts of the case and in view of the fact that there is breach of the provisions of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act, the authorities below were completely justified in passing the impugned orders. Considering the facts of the case, in my opinion, the respondent authorities were completely justified in passing the impugned orders. I am in complete agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by respondent authorities and hence, find no reason to interfere with the same.