PATEL MAGANBHAI MULABHAI Vs. COLLECTOR BANASKANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order Annexure-G passed by the State Government rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the Collector, Banaskantha in Appeal and the order passed by the competent authority - Dy. Collector.

(2.) The petitioner is an owner of land bearing blocks no. 193 and 191 adjoining to blocks No. 185, 186 and 187 owned by the respondents no. 2 to 6. The respondent no. 6 wanted to sell block no. 185 as it was separate from other lands in order to pay the amount for purchase of other land. The said land being adjoining to the land of the petitioner, the petitioner agreed to purchase the same for Rs.20,000.00 and paid Rs.5000.00 on 20-4-1975, Rs.4000.00 on 7-5-1980 and remaining amount of Rs.11,000/on 21-5-1980. The registered sale deed was executed on the same day i.e. 21-5-1980 and the petitioner was put into possession of that land. Since then the petitioner is in possession of that the said land and is cultivating the same. The respondents no. 2 and 3 being owners of block no. 186 adjoining to block no. 193 of the petitioner, that land was sold to the petitioner for Rs.2000.00 by a registered sale deed on 28-6-1978 and since then the petitioner is in possession and is cultivating that land. Thereafter, the respondents no. 2 and 3 also sold block No.186 to the petitioner for development of their other land. The respondent no. 5 also sold his land - block no. 187 to the petitioner for Rs.2000.00 by a registered sale deed on 14-8-1978 and the possession thereof was handed over to the petitioner. Similarly, the respondent no. 5 also sold his land block no. 187 to the petitioner by registered sale deed.

(3.) The petitioner after purchasing the aforesaid lands i.e. block No. 185, 186 and 187 has invested huge amount for making the land cultivable. But the petitioner's name was not entered into revenue record for the land purchased by him from the respondents no. 2 to 6. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application on 21-2-1983 to the Mamlatdar. The Dy. Collector vide his order dated 27-8-1984 held that the possession of the land in question was handed over to the petitioner and there was no breach of fragmentation or consolidation but directed for forfeiture of the petitioner's land to the State Government for breach of conditions of new tenure land by sale without previous permission of the State Government.