NANJIBHAI JIVABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat in Revision Application No.2/2010, by which the Revisional Authority has dismissed the said revision application confirming the order passed by the Collector, Amreli dated 30.12.2009.

(2.) THAT the land bearing survey No.54 paikee situated at Savar Samapadar, Taluka Savarkundla was granted on santhani in favour of Nanjibhai Jivabhai and three others by the Deputy Collector, Mahuva by order dated 25.06.1982. THAT the said land was granted as new tenure restriction land. THAT thereafter the allottees submitted an application in the year 1997 before the Mamlatdar, Savarkundla to remove the restrictions and to convert the said land into old tenure and the Mamlatdar, Savarkundla by order dated 22.10.1997 directed to remove the restrictions on new tenure for agriculture use. THAT necessary mutation entry was also made in the revenue record. It appears that immediately thereafter the land in question was sold and necessary entry with respect to the said sale was made vide mutation entry Nos.4633 dated 26.10.1997, 4631 dated 27.10.1997 and 4803 dated 16.03.2000. THAT thereafter after a period of approximately two years, the Deputy Collector, Amreli took the order passed by the Mamlatdar, Savarkundla dated 22.10.1997 converting the land from new tenure into old tenure, into suo moto revision/review on the ground that the order passed by the Mamlatdar, Savarkundla was without jurisdiction and authority under the law and Collector, Amreli passed an order quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar, Savarkundla converting the land into old tenure land. It appears that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Collector, Amreli, a revision application was preferred before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat being Revision Application Nos.17/2002 and 29/2002 and by order dated 20.12.2006, the said revision applications were partly allowed and the matter was remanded to the Collector, Amreli to consider whether the transaction can be regularized or not. THAT thereafter Collector, Amreli considered the same and by order dated 30.12.2009 forfeited the land to the State Government by holding that there is a breach of condition Nos.6(1) and 6(2) of the allotment of the order dated 25.06.1982 as well as Section 30 of the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as ?Ceiling Act?), as the land in question was an excess vacant under the provisions of the Ceiling Act, which was allotted to the original allottee as a new tenure land and the same is required to be allotted only as per Section 30 of the Ceiling Act. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order date 30.12.2009 passed by the Collector, Amreli, petitioners preferred revision application before the State Government i.e. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat being Revision Application No.2/2010 and by impugned order, the revisional authority has dismissed the said revision application confirming the order dated 30.12.2009 passed by the Collector, Amreli. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid two orders, petitioners have preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) LET the petitioners submit an appropriate application before the Collector, Amreli/State Government to convert the land from new tenure to old tenure and remove the restrictions on payment of premium considering the market price/jantri as on today and pray for regularization of the transaction and as and when such an application is made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and on merits and considering the prevailing policy and the market price/jantri as on today and the same be communicated to the petitioners. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the present order. In case such an application is granted and the transaction is regularized and petitioners pay the amount of premium, in that case, nothing further is required to be done and in case such an application is not granted and the request of the petitioners is not accepted, it will be open for the petitioners to challenge the impugned orders within the period of four weeks from the date of such communication and as and when such proceedings are initiated, the same be considered in accordance with law and on merits.