GANGABEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants (original Petitioners) have filed this appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 8.10.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Misc. Civil Application No. 1796 of 2010. The above application for review came to be disposed of by correcting a fact noticed by leaned Single Judge about nature of perennially irrigated land erroneously included in the total holding of agricultural land and declaring the land as surplus by the authority under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1961 (for short "the Act").

(2.) It is necessary to refer orders passed by various authorities under the Act namely, Mamlatdar and ALT, Dy. Collector and Gujarat Revenue Tribunal under the Act. As per the record, a finding was given by the competent authority namely Mamlatdar and ALT and Agricultural Land Tribunal on 24.6.1987 declaring a total of 28 Acres 38 Gunthas of land of the Petitioners as surplus, which came to be upheld by the Dy. Collector in appeal vide order dated 13.6.1988 and also by the revisional authority namely, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal as per decision dated 4.7.1992. Thus, when Special Civil Application No. 7494 of 1993 was filed with regard to area of land and ceiling limit, no dispute was raised by the Petitioners. However, various contentions were raised with regard to applicability of provisions of Sections 6(2) and 15 of the Act in the context of the facts about nature of agricultural land as defined under the Act. One of the main contention raised by the Petitioners before learned Judge was about land admeasuring around 18 Acres 37 Gunthas was transferred by him in favour of his son in the year 1970 and his wife, i.e. mother of his son, remained as guardian to look after the land. It is not necessary for us at this stage to consider various facts in details along with other arguments of learned advocate canvassed before the learned Single Judge in the above writ petition, since after considering provisions of Sections 6(2) and Section 15 of the Act and transfer of the land admeasuring 18 Acres 37 Gunthas prior to the specified date and further different types of the land held by the holder, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on 22.10.2008.

(3.) Mr. Kharadi, learned advocate for the Appellants reiterated all submissions canvassed before learned Single Judge in an application for review as well as contentions raised in appeal in which liberty was reserved to the Appellants to prefer review application and further contended that while reviewing the order, learned Single Judge again has not addressed to very aspects of nature of perennially irrigated land in the context of Canal Certificate issued by the authority in the command area of irrigation project and before the competent authority Canal Officer was not cross examined. Therefore, order passed in review application impugned in this appeal suffers from basic error and when all the authorities namely, Competent, Appellate and Revisional under the Act failed to appreciate above factual error and also depriving the Appellants/Petitioners of right to cross-examine Canal Officer so as to unearth truth deserves to be corrected by this Court. According to learned advocate for the Appellants provisions of Sections 6(2) and 15 of the Act are not interpreted in the context of factual background of the case and thus, learned Judge committed an error barring a minor correction in confirming the orders passed by the authorities below in declaring the land of the Petitioners as surplus.