AMRUTLAL KALIDAS PATEL Vs. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx

(2.) 2. to 6. xxx xxx xxx

(3.) The land has been divided into 12 sub plots and the petitioners are the purchasers of the said sub -plots under sales deed -executed and registered on 30 -9 -1989. Present petitioners were owning and occupying their respective sub -plots since 30 -9 -1989 and they were not even asked to appear before the Deputy Collector when the alleged jurisdiction vested with the Deputy Collector was exercised in the light of the provisions of said Fragmentation Act. When the petitioners came to know about the colourable exercise of powers by the Deputy Collector and the fact that the day on which the notice for cancellation of mutation entries were issued in the year 1996, the land in question was no more an agricultural land and was part of the T. P. Scheme. The Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction either to initiate the proceedings or to pass any order in exercise of the alleged jurisdiction vested with him for the so called violation of Sections 7 and/or 8 of the Fragmentation Act.