JAYANTIBHAI MANCHHARAM MERIE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenging the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority, Secretary (Appeals), State of Gujarat dated 17.3.2004 in Revision Application No.5 of 1997 as well as oder passed by the Collector, Valsad dated 24.6.1996 passed in RTS Review Case No.300 of 1993 by which while taking the mutation entry no.485 dated 20.5.1968; mutation entry no.269 dated 22.9.1970 and the last mutation entry no.445 dated 20.9.1991, Collector, Valsad directed to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner under Section 84 C of the Bombay Tenancy Act by observing that it is proved that the petitioner was non-agriculturist at the time when he purchased the land in question.

(2.) The facts leading to the present petition in nutshell are as under:

(3.) The land in question bearing Survey Nos.57/2, 5, situated at village Bhensdhara Tal: Dharampur, Dist. Valsad was in the name of one Lakhabhai Raghabhai who sold the same to the petitioner for which mutation entry no.485 was made dated 20.5.1968, which came to be certified by the Mamlatdar, Dharampur. It appears that the land bearing Survey No.32 paiki of village Fulavadi was in the name of one Dahyabhai Parbubhai and in respect to the said land the mutation entry was made in favour of the petitioner by mutation entry no. 269 dated 22.9.1970 mutating the name of the petitioner as tenant/ Ganotia. The said order also came to be certified by the Mamlatdar, Dharampur on 6.11.1970. It appears that one another land bearing survey no.36 paiki 1 situated at village Chinchojar was in the name of one Jagdishbhai Maganbhai, which came to be purchased by the petitioner and in respect of which a mutation entry no.455 dated 20.9.1991 was made and the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record. The said entry also came to be certified by the Mamlatdar. It appears that all the aforesaid entries came to be taken under Review by the Mamlatdar and thereafter a report was made to the Collector, Valsad and thereafter a show cause notice was issued upon the petitioner and others by the Collector, Valsad, which was registered as RTS Review Case No.300 of 1993 and after giving an opportunity to all concerned, Collector, Valsad passed an order dated 24.6.1996 observing that it is proved that the petitioner original opponent no.2 was non-agriculturist at the time when he purchased the land in question and therefore, the learned Collector, Valsad directed the Mamlatdar and ALT, Dharampur to initiate tee proceedings under Section 84 C of the Bombay Tenancy Act and to enter the name of the Government into revenue record. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Colllector, Valsad, the petitioner preferred RTS Revision Application No. 5 of 1997 before the Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department, State of Gujarat and by impugned order dated 17.3.2004 the Revision Authority has dismissed the said revision application confirming the order passed by the Collector, Valsad dated 24.6.1996 passed in RTS Review Case No. 300 of 1993. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.