SHAILESHKUMAR RAMANLAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have questioned the orders produced at AnnexureE and G respectively passed by the competent authorities being Collector, Vadodara (RTS 36 of 1996) and Additional Secretary, State of Gujarat, in exercise of their respective powers under Rule 108 (5) of Bombay Land Revenue Rules. While first was the original order, second order was passed in revision application against the first order.

(2.) THE petitioners asserted their ownership of the disputed land on the basis of a will executed in their favour by an agriculturist for agricultural land. Though belatedly, it was sought to be contended in revision application before the first respondent that the petitioners are agriculturist and, therefore, not vulnerable to the provisions prohibiting transfer of agricultural land. However, the first respondent, after holding that the petitioners does not appear to be agriculturist, went on to hold that the petitioners have produced the evidence showing that they were agriculturist but it could not be read in evidence in the revision application.

(3.) LEARNED AGP fairly conceded that while strict provisions of Evidence Act may apply in proceedings in the Court, insofar as quasi judicial authorities are concerned, to ascertain necessary facts for the purpose of assertion of rights of the individuals, revisional authority could have given an opportunity to the petitioners to produce necessary documents before it.