DOULATRAI PREMSHANKAR BHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocates.

(2.) In the year 1968, the petitioner was granted land Survey No.174 paiki admeasuring 20-Acres of Village Sarmat, District Jamnagar for a specific purpose of raising Coconut plantation. Revenue Entry No.350 with respect to the said grant was made in the village records and was certified on 17/12/1968. Since then, on 30/06/1981, the petitioner appears to have purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No.50/1 paiki admeasuring 7-Acres and 4-Gunthas of Village Vasai, District Jamnagar from the respondent no.4 herein. The said transfer was registered in the village records under Revenue Entry No.799. The said entry was certified on 15/12/1982. In the year 1988, the petitioner applied for permission for Non-Agricultural use (Industrial use) of the said land Survey No.50/1 paiki of Village Vasai to the District Panchayat, Jamnagar. Such permission was granted by the District Panchayat, Jamnagar on 20th February, 1988 in respect of the land admeasuring 2-Acres and 8-Gunthas. After obtaining such permission, the petitioner had sold some 8903 Sq.Meters of the said land to one M/s. Patiala Chemicals Industries and had also handed over the possession of the said land.

(3.) On 14/08/1989, seven years after the date of the said entry, the Assistant Collector, Jamnagar, in exercise of power conferred under Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and under Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'), took the above referred Revenue Entry No.799 of Village Vasai in Revision. The Assistant Collector was of the opinion that on the date of the purchase i.e. in the year 1982, the petitioner was not an agriculturist within the meaning of the Ordinance. The transfer in favour of the petitioner was in contravention of Section 54 of the Ordinance and was null and void. The notice was contested by the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that in view of the grant of land at Village Sarmat and the Coconut plantation raised by him, the petitioner became an agriculturist. Hence, on the date of purchase of the land at Village Vasai, the petitioner was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Ordinance. The purchase made by him is, therefore, legal and valid. The petitioner also contested on the ground of gross delay in initiating the action and the fact that the part of the said land was already transferred to the third party. The Assistant Collector, Jamnagar was, under his order dated 18/09/1989, pleased to hold that raising of Coconut plantation can not be said to be an agricultural operation. The petitioner was, therefore, not an agriculturist and the transfer made in his favour was null and void. The said order was confirmed by the District Collector, Jamnagar under his order dated 26th May, 1990 made in Appeal No.6/90. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No.2 of 1990 before the State Government. The State Government (Additional Chief Secretary - Appeals, Revenue Department), under its order dated 1 1/12/1990, confirmed the finding of the authorities below that on the date of the transfer of land at Village Vasai the petitioner was not an agriculturist. The State Government was further pleased to hold that the grant of land to the petitioner made in the year 1968 for the purpose of raising Coconut plantation was contrary to the prevailing Government instructions and was bad. The Revision Application was, therefore, dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.