BHAVANISANG SARDARSANG Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal arises against tnnnnhe judgment of the learned single judge dated 3.7.1996 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) The short facts of the present case are that the petitioner who is the agriculturist was holding total lands to the extent of 60 acres and 8 gunthas on 24.1.1971, but after 24.1.1971 and before 1.4.1976 he had sold four pieces of the land admeasuring 24 acres and 35 gunthas being different parcels of land to different persons by registered sale deeds. It is the case of the original petitioner that after the sale of said land during the period 1971 in exchange of said lands he has purchased in the year 1973 another land admeasuring 25 acres and 24 gunthas. The case of the original petitioner is that since the the earlier four pieces of lands were situated at different places he has sold away the same and the land is purchased by him in the name of his wife in one block for the purpose of convenient cultivation. The competent authority had initially held that the transactions are bonafide and the certificate was issued. However, thereafter, the State had preferred appeal against the decision of the Deputy Collector on the ground that the revenue authorities were not heard and therefore the matter was remanded to the Deputy Collector for consideration of the matter afresh. Thereafter, the said case was numbered as Case No.120/77. The witnesses were examined and it had come on record that the original petitioner had purchased the land and it had also come on record that the land was purchased by him in the name of his wife. However, Assistant Collector exercising powers of the Deputy Collector held that the transactions can not be said to be bonafide because the contention of the petitioner herein is that the lands which are sold at a distant place but no evidence is coming forward and another contention regarding purchase of land in the name of his wife on the ground that when the original petitioner had re-married it was agreed by him that the lands will be purchased in the name of his wife, but the marriage has taken place in the year 1966 whereas the land is purchased in the year 1973 and therefore the said contention regarding the promise given to his second wife is unbelievable. Ultimately, the Assistant Collector passed the order on 22.12.1981 whereby he found that the burden for showing that the transaction was bonafide and was not with a view to defeat the provisions of the Act is not discharged and therefore it was declared accordingly.

(3.) Against the said decision of the Assistant Collector revision came to be preferred by the original petitioner before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal being Revision Application No.90/81. The revisional authority ultimately, for the reasons recorded in the order, dismissed the revision and confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector. Against the said decision of the tribunal it appears review application was also preferred which came to be dismissed at the preliminary hearing itself as per the order dated 17.9.1982.