GHANSHYAMBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL Vs. GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Vimal Purohit, learned advocate for the petitioners, Ms. Divyangna Jhala, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State and learned advocate Ms. B.M.Pathan for Mr. Salim Saiyed, learned advocate for respondent Nos.4.1 and 4.2.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Purohit extensively argued the matter and apprised the Court about the factual matrix of the dispute between the parties and the orders in question. He submits that right from 1950, names of the predecessors in title of the petitioners was shown in the revenue record as owners of the land and they were actually cultivating the said land. It is only for 2 years that the names of respondent Nos.4.1 and 4.2 were shown in the revenue record under Column - Second rights. The proceedings under Sec. 32(G) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act, 1948 ') were decided in favour of the predecessor in title of the petitioners and notices issued under Section 32(G) of the Act, 1948 were dropped and subsequently by way of two registered sale deeds, the petitioners purchased the land in question. Further, with a view to convert the land into non-agricultural land, an application was given by the petitioners to the competent authority to delete the names of respondent Nos.4.1 and 4.2. However, that resulted into initiation of fresh proceedings under the Act, 1948 which was decided in favour the petitioners by the Mamlat & ALT and by the appellate authority i.e. the District Supply Officer. The aforesaid two orders were carried in revision by the present respondent Nos.4.1 and 4.2 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal passed an interim order dtd. 12/08/2021 directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the land in question and the said orders are the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Purohit further submits that after the aforesaid orders were passed, the respondent Nos.4.1 and 4.2 have tried to flout the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 12/08/2021 by putting a board on the land in question stating that the land belongs to respondent Nos.4.1 and 4.2 and they are in possession of the land in question.