STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DAHYABHAI KALIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned AGP Ms. Pandit for the petitioners in these petitions and Mr. D.V. Parikh, learned advocate for the respondents purchasers and Mr. A.M. Parekh, learned advocate for the respondents original vendors. All these petitions were admitted by this court by issuing rule therein on 23.12.1997. All these petitions raises common question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The Mamlatdar and ALT Gandhinagar started separate inquiries under section 84 C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 in respect of the transfer of the lands of village Sughad by the respondents in favour of the respondents who are purchasers on the dates shown against them; entries were also certified and the notices under section 84C of the Act were also issued in the year 1985.

(3.) Before the Mamlatdar and ALT, the heirs of the deceased purchaser Dahyabhai Kalidas appeared and filed their written statement stating that their father Dahyabhai Kalidas was an agriculturist of Survey No. 302 of Asarva which was ancestral property and the entry was mutated in his name on 7.7.1962. It was further stated by the heirs of the deceased purchaser before the Mamlatdar and ALT that the entries which have been certified were so done after the revenue authorities satisfied themselves that the deceased Dahyabhai Kalidas was an agriculturist. They have further stated that they were the agriculturist. Therefore, they had purchased the suit land and are personally cultivating the same. They have also produced copies of Pahani Patrak, record of right in form no. 6 and 8A to prove that the deceased Dahyabhai Kalidas was holding survey no. 302 of village Asarva in his name. The Mamlatdar and ALT after considering the documentary evidence on record, held that the deceased applicant Dahyabhai Kalidas had committed breach of sec. 2(2), 2(6) and 63 of the Act and, hence, he ordered the suit survey numbers of the five cases to have vested in the State Government. The Mamlatdar had also given an opportunity to the parties to bring the suit survey numbers in their original position within three months from the date of the order and if they failed to act accordingly, the survey numbers were ordered to vest in the State Government. The appeals filed against the said judgment and order in the Court of the Prant Officer were also dismissed and thereafter, revision applications were preferred before the revisional authority namely Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Revision Applications NO. 442 to 447 of 1988 were filed before the tribunal by the original purchasers which were decided by the tribunal on 23rd March, 1993 and by the said common order dated 23rd March, 1993, the tribunal has allowed the said revision applications. Said order dated 23.3.1993 passed by the tribunal in respect of the five revision applications as aforesaid has been challenged by the petitioner State in these three petitions in so far as the revision application no. 442, 443 and 446 of 1988 are concerned. It is pertinent to note that the order of the tribunal dated 23.3.1993 has not been challenged in so far as the remaining two revision application no. 445 and 447 of 1988 are concerned.