VISHNUBHAI AMBALAL PATEL Vs. SHANKERJI P THAKORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions challenge two orders passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') under Sec. 76 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'Tenancy Act') in respect of two adjoining parcels of land being block numbers 261 and 260 (respectively) admeasuring 1 acre and 38 gunthas and H.0-79 Ares 68 sq. mts., in village Kudasan of Taluka and District Gandhinagar purchased by the same petitioner from the same respondent under two separate registered sale deeds dated January 21, 1981.

(2.) Since the provisions of Sec. 63 of the Tenancy Act impose a restriction that agricultural land cannot be sold in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist, the petitioner had relied upon the petitioner's possessing land bearing Survey No. 185 of village Memnagar in Taluka Ahmedabad City and District Ahmedabad which the petitioner was holding since 1960. However, the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Gandhinagar initiated proceedings under Sec. 84C of the Tenancy Act being Tenancy Case Nos. 2547 and 2546 of 1982 on the ground that both the transactions of sale dated January 21, 1981 were in violation of Sec. 63 read with Secs. 2(2) and 2(6) of the Tenancy Act. The petitioner's appeals being Appeal Nos. 201 and 203 of 1983 (respectively) were dismissed by the Prant Officer or the Deputy Collector. The petitioner accordingly filed two separate revision applications before the Tribunal.

(3.) As far as the land bearing block No. 261 is concerned, Revision Application No. 87 of 1984 came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated April 8, 1986. The said judgment is challenged in Special Civil Application No. 5668 of 1986. While admitting the petition on October 23, 1986, this Court granted ad-interim stay of operation, implementation and execution of the orders passed by the Tribunal, the appellate officer and the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal. The petitioner accordingly continues to remain in possession of the land bearing block No. 261.