BHANIBEN MAKANBHAI TANDEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed under Article. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the A.L.T. and Mamlatdar Valsad in Tenancy Case No. 84/C No. 1347 By the said order the land purchased by the petitioners by the registered document dated 12 for which the mutation entries were made in the name being Entry No. 936 in the year 1969 certified on 1 3/06/1969 were held to be illegal particularly on the ground that the petitioners were not the agriculturists in respect of the land in the State of Gujarat and therefore the transaction was hit under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. By the said order they were ordered to hand over the possession back to the original vendor within 3 months failing which the sale was to be declared invalid and would vest in the State Government. The said order was passed on 29 of March 1986. Being aggrieved by the same the present petitioner filed Tenancy Appeal No. 66 before the Deputy Collector Valsad. The said appeal was dismissed by the order dated S-6-1978. Being aggrieved by the said order petitioner preferred Revision Application u/S. 76 of the Tenancy Act before G.R.T. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by the order dated 11-1-80 dismissed the application and hence the present writ petition.

(2.) It may be mentioned that the present petitioners are holding the land at village Kativid of Daman Tal and the extract thereof is also produced in the record that they are holding O. 34 gunthas of land as mentioned in the order of the Mamlatdar. Petitioners purchased the land of survey Nos. 5611562/56311 564 592 part 593 594 part and also land at village Kunta bearing survey Nos. 389/1 389 388 392 totally admeasuring 29 acres 27 gunthas. Both aforesaid land by the registered document dated 12 of Sept. 1962 and mutation entry in favour of the present petitioners were also certified being mutation entry No. 936 on 13/06/1969 however it appears that the proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act are initiated in 1975

(3.) In this the petitioner has challanged the validity of the aforesaid decision on the ground that there is unreasonable delay in initiating the proceedings u/S. 84C. Looking to the fact that the sale deed has taken place in the year 1968 and proceedings are initiated in 1975 there is a delay of 7 years. It may also be mentioned that even the mutation entry was also certified in the year 1969 and therefore the Revenue Officer also had the knowledge of that entry. Hence even if it is considered from that day there is a delay of 6 years.