M C DADWAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek to challenge the impugned order dated Feb. 8, 1980 passed by the Government under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code cancelling the order dated 10th April 1970 of the Collector, Panchmahals granting the disputed lands to the petitioners and directing the possession to be resumed by the Collector.

(2.) The record discloses that, on March 3, 1969, the petitioners made applications to the Government for allotment of waste- land for cultivation. The petitioner No. 1 in his application Ann. A sent to the Collector, Ahmedabad, had indicated that he wanted to cultivate the land after his retirement and that he should therefore be allotted 16 acres of land in Sanand Taluka in accordance with the policy of the State Government of allotting waste land to Army personnel for cultivation. The petitioner No. 2 also simultaneously made an application to the Collector, Ahmedabad, for getting 16 acres of land in Sanand Taluka in accordance with the said policy on the ground that he was at that time in Indian Military Academy, Dehradun. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner No. 2 continues to serve in the Army. It appears that in view of these applications, the petitioner were allotted lands on "Eksali" basis on certain condition by orders dated 19th April 1969 at Ann. 'B' collectively. It appears that since the land which was allotted to the petitioner No. 1 remained submerged during most of the monsoon season the petitioner requested the Collector to allot him land in Village - Fangadi and accordingly, by order dated 19th June 1969 he was allotted land in Village Fangadi on 'Eksali' basis. Thereafter by an application at Annexure 'E' dated llth September 1969, the petitioner requested the Government that since he intended to go in for modern farming which was not possible in the Sanand area he and his son may be allotted 32 acres of land in Mehalol area of Godhra Taluka and on such land being allotted they would surrender the land allotted to them in Sanand Taluka. Pursuant to this application, the Government appears to have written to the Collector on 27-2-70 and according to the instructions so received the Collector by his order dated 10-4-1970 at Ann. 'F' to the petition allotted lands to the petitioners as stated therein. Thereafter, on 28-11-79, the Government issued a show-cause notice to the petitioners calling upon them as to why the said order dated 10-4-70 of the Collector should not be cancelled and why the land should not be resumed by the Government. The main allegation made against the petitioners was that while making an application for grant of land it was suppressed that 60 acres of agricultural land was standing in the name of petitioner No. 1 in Punjab. It was pointed out that the circumstances under which the Government wasteland could be granted were set under Government Resolution dated 1st March 1960 as amended from time to time. In response to the show-cause notice dated 28-11-79 it was pointed out that the revisional powers under Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code cannot be invoked after a lapse of so many years. It was further pointed out that the petitioner No. 1 had sold away his land in Punjab and had decided to settle in Gujarat since the climate of Gujarat suited him. He pointed out that by order dated 10th April 1970, the petitioners were given land in exchange of the land which was already allotted to them. He also urged that the forms on which his signature was taken by the Revenue Circle Inspector were in Gujarati and he had not filled in the particulars himself but had put his signature only. He pointed out that even though he was serving in the Army, the Revenue Circle Inspector had written Air Force in the form. He further pointed out that though he was an agriculturist the Circle Inspector had written 'no' against that column. He further pointed out that, though his name was Brigadier M. C. Dadwal, the Circle Inspector had written Thakur Mangatchand C. Dadwal. It was further pointed out that he had sold lands in Punjab on 10-6-70, i.e. after two months only after the allotment of land, at a throw away price and had invested that amount for the development of the said land which was allotted to the petitioners. The revisional authority placed reliance on the aforesaid form in which it was mentioned that the petitioner No. 1 had "no lands of khatha". It appears that, a CBI enquiry was made in the matter and ultimately the petitioner No. 1 was not convicted by the Court Marshal. It was held by the revisional authority that the CBI enquiry was under progress till 1973 when the irregularity was brought to the notice of the Government and therefore revisional powers under Section 211 of the Code were exercised within reasonable time having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. It was held that if the petitioner No. 1 had correctly furnished the information regarding his holdings of land in Punjab, he would not have been eligible for the allotment of this land. It was further held that the policy of the Government was to grant wasteland to Ex-servicemen and the Army Personnel who are likely to retire from service and since the petitioner No. 1 was a high ranking military officer who was in active service he was not eligible for allotment in view of the policy of the Government reflected in the resolution dated 1st March 1960 as mended by resolutions dated 13-11-62 and 5-12-62. As regards the petitioner No. 2, it was held that he was a cadet and was not an Ex-serviceman nor a Serviceman about to retire and therefore he too was not eligible for allotment of land. It was further held that since the petitioner No. 1 had received Rs. 90,000 by way of sale of his land in Punjab it cannot be said that he was a needy person and that is why also he was not eligible for allotment of land under the said resolution.

(3.) In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Collector, Panchmahals, it is stated that a person who holds the post of a Brigadier in the Military is not entitled to the land. It is contended that there is no time limit fixed for exercise of revisional powers under Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code and even if there was delay it was because the enquiry was conducted by the C.B.I. It is stated that, as per the policy of the Government, the petitioner No. 2 who was in active service of the Army and who was not to retire in near future was not entitled to grant of land and his grant was also rightly cancelled. As regards the policy declared by the Government in the pamphlet which is referred to in the petition for allotting land to Servicemen, it is stated that the Government is not aware of any such pamphlet or any such policy.