URMILABEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed challenging the order dated 22.12.1993 passed by Collector, Surat in Revision Case No. 44 of 1993 and the order dated 20.05.1999 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department, State of Gujarat in Revision No. 29 of 1994 whereby the order dated 22.12.1993 was confirmed.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the land of survey no. 549 block no. 618 admeasuring 0 hectare 24 Are 97 sq. mt of village Vankal, Mangrol Taluka, Surat was entered in the revenue records in the name of Shri Chamadiya Namlabhai. The husband of the present petitioner gave an application to show his name along with the said Namlabhai as the joint occupant and after verification of the facts his name was entered as joint owner by Nondh No. 832 dated 25.09.1965 in the village form no. 6. The petitioner's husband was in fact cultivating land along with Shri Namlabhai as both of them had purchased the said land from one Manchhubhai Durlabhai. 2.1 IT is the case of the petitioner that after the death of her husband, her sons and herself were cultivating the said land and the entry in the records continued from 25.09.1965 for more than 25 years. IT the say of the petitioner that the Assistant Collector, Olpad Prant issued a show cause notice dated 22.11.1990 to Shri Namlabhai as well as the present petitioners to show cause as to why suo motu power of revision should not be exercised to cancel the entry no. 832 dated 25.09.1965. 2.2 Thereafter the petitioners also received notice dated 14.05.1993 from the Collector, Surat issued under section 108(6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code stating therein that as there is a breach of provisions of section 2(6) read with section 63 of ht Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act and as the land belongs to Adiwasi necessary proof should be produced before the Collector, Surat. 2.3 The petitioners replied to the suo motu revision initiated by the Assistant Collector being Revision/RG. N. 182/87 Mangrol vide reply dated 31.12.1990 and also filed similar reply to notice by the Collector, Surat dated 14.05.1993 in Revision Case No. 44 of 1993. The Collector, Surat in RTS/REvision Case No. 44/93 vide order dated 22.12.1993 held that the entry in question was made contrary to the provisions of section 63 of the Tenancy Act. 2.4 Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred Revision Application being Revision No. 29/94 before the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat. The said appeal was rejected vide order dated 20.05.1999 and therefore being aggrieved by the same the present petition is preferred.

(3.) THIS court has heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers on record. At the outset the decision of this court in the case of Evergreen Apartment (supra), more particularly paras 9, 10 & 11 are required to be perused and the same read as under: