SONI PRASHANTKUMAR DINKARRAI LUHAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Denish Morakhia for learned Advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Hardik Mehta for the respondent No.1-State.

(2.) By way of this petition the petitioner challenges an order passed by the revisional authority dtd. 15/6/2021, whereby the order of the District Collector, Amreli dtd. 31/12/2019 has been confirmed.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Morakhia would submit that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide a show-cause notice dtd. 19/12/2018 under Rule 108(6) of the Land Revenue Rules and under the provision of Sec. 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Act and whereas it is submitted by the learned Advocate that the dispute was with regard to a entry of a registered sale deed dtd. 3/11/2010 entered into between the petitioner and one Babubhai Popatbhai Rathod, the entry in question being revenue entry No.1459. It is submitted that in the show-cause notice the reason for issuance of the same calling upon the explanation of the petitioner was with regard to a discrepancy about whether the petitioner was an agriculturist or not. Learned Advocate Mr. Morakhia would submit that vide order dtd. 31/12/2019, the Collector, Amreli respondent No.3 herein, in addition to discussing and passing an order with regard to status of the petitioner as an agriculturist, the District Collector also appears to have gone into the aspect of breach of provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, which was beyond the purview of the Collector, more particularly since no show- cause notice had been issued to the petitioner in that regard. Insofar as the status of the petitioner as an agriculturist is concerned, it is contended by learned Advocate Mr. Morakhia that the issue was only with regard to the discrepancy in the name of the petitioner. It is submitted that grandfather and the father of the petitioner had carried the surname of Soni and whereas the petitioner had used the surname as Luhar and according to the Collector, the same was doubtful. Learned Advocate Mr. Morakhia has also taken this Court through the findings of the learned Collector, whereby the Collector confirms the fact that one Dinkarbhai Soni and Bhanabhai Bhagwanbhai Soni i.e. father and grandfather of the petitioner were in fact agriculturists. Learned Advocate would submit that by virtue of the same, the petitioner would automatically acquire the status of an agriculturist, whereas since the petitioner stats his name as Prashantkumar Dinkarbhai Luhar, the Collector had came to a conclusion that the petitioner was not the same person as Prashantkumar Dinkarbhai Soni.