STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. THAKOR NARANSINGH FATEHSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH served, nobody appears for the respondents.

(2.) BY this petition, the applicant State of Gujarat has prayed for appropriate order to quash and set aside the order dated 01.02.1996 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.TEN/BA/226 of 1995 by which Gujarat Revenue Tribunal allowed the revision application preferred by the respondents herein.

(3.) THIS Court has gone through the order dated 10.12.1993 passed by the Additional Mamlatdar & ALT, Chhtaudepur in Ceiling Case No.2 of 1990; order dated 20.02.1995 passed by the Deputy Collector, Chhotaudepur in Ceiling Revision Case No.2 of 1994 and order dated 01.02.1996 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.TEN/BA/226 of 1995. It is observed by the Tribunal in its order that after considering the evidence on record, it appears that Deputy Collector has collected evidence in suo moto proceedings by recording evidence of Mulendrasingh Naransingh Chauhan who is the power of attorney holder of respondents herein, which he ought not to have done. It is further observed by the Tribunal that Mamlatdar and ALT has withdrawn the notice issued against the present respondents on different ground but the respondents herein are entitled to additional 2/5th of Unit as on 01.04.1976 and therefore, there is no question of any land remaining excess. It is observed by the Mamlatdar in its order dated 10.12.1993 that 3 Acre and 7 Gunthas excess land was possessed by the respondents herein. It is also observed by the Mamlatdar in its order dated 10.12.1993 that another piece of land in Survey No.8 being 1 Acre and 17 which was in the name of the respondents herein was taken over by the Government by entry No.277 dated 04.08.1978 and if this land is adjusted, only 1 Acre and 30 Gunthas of land is required to be released. It is also observed by the Mamlatdar in its order dated 10.12.1993 that taking into consideration small piece of land, it cannot be used for public purpose and therefore, Mamlatdar has held that same so is not required to be declared as excess under the Ceiling Act and dropped the proceedings.