SURAJI SAVAJI THAKOR Vs. SPECIAL SECRETARY (APPEALS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Letters Patent Appeal the appellants -original petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of an oral order dtd. 1/12/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 16881 of 2020.

(2.) The background of facts in brief is that the appellants -original petitioners are the legal heirs of Suraji Savaji (tenant) had applied for grant of land on 11/2/2014. The subject land in question bearing Survey No. 945/2a+3a+4a paiki, admeasuring 7790 sq.mtrs., situated at Village : Uvarsad, Taluka and District : Gandhinagar. The said land in question was cultivated by the Suraji Savaji i.e. ancestor of the original petitioners in the capacity as a tenant and as such was declared as permanent tenant by virtue of order of Mamlatdar dtd. 27/11/1947 and accordingly, the mutation entry was also incorporated in the revenue record on 20/4/1948 being Entry No. 3207. Under the provisions of Sec. 32G of Tenancy Act, said Suraji Savaji i.e. ancestor of the original petitioners being the tenant was called upon whether he is desirous of purchasing the land in question or not but said Suraji Savaji had expired in the year 1960 and legal heirs were not issued with a notice and therefore, the purchase remained in effective possession resultantly an Entry No. 5579 on 15/3/1967 came to be made. Subsequently, a Ganot case was registered bearing Ganot Case No. 1808/88 and by virtue of order dtd. 17/2/1988, the land came to be taken over by State Government by virtue of provisions contained under Sec. 32P of Tenancy Act and entry to that effect has also been mutated being Entry No. 7984 dtd. 29/2/1988.

(3.) Mr. Vimal A. Purohit, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has vehemently contended that a close perusal of the provisions contained under Sec. 32 of the Tenancy Act would clearly indicate that allotment which was made in favour of the appellants was just and proper and same ought not to have disturbed in any manner having done so without interpreting relevant provisions in its proper perspective, an error is committed by learned Single Judge which requires to be corrected. It has been submitted that at relevant point of time, the ancestor deceased Suraji Savaji was declared as a permanent tenant by virtue of specific order dtd. 27/11/1947, which has also been given effect in the revenue entries and the said aspect was not in dispute and it is only because of the fact that Suraji Savaji had expired in 1960 the proceedings could not be concluded of the purchase as contemplated under Sec. 32G of the Tenancy Act and as such said purchase has remained in effective pursuant to which, an entry came to be mutated on 15/3/1967 being Entry No. 5579 and in between after taking over the land under the head of Government, a fresh process was undertaken in which the appellants have made an application for grant of land on 11/2/2014 and same has been considered in accordance with law on 16/1/2019 and in fact the purchase price was paid and hence, there was no just and proper reason to unsettle such allotment which has taken place in favour of the appellants. The impugned order passed by SSRD dtd. 25/8/2020 as such was not sustainable in the eye of law which aspect has not been considered in its proper prospective by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the error which has been crept in deserves to be corrected by quashing and setting aside the same.