SHANKHLA NARSINHDAS LADHURAM Vs. DY.COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEFORE the order is signed, Mr. Abichandani, has prayed for restoration and he states that he is ready to proceed with the matter. Hence, restored. The matter is further heard.

(2.) THE present petition has been preferred by the petitioners for challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT and the confirmation thereof by the Deputy Collector as well as the Tribunal, whereby the transaction for purchase of the land is declared as hit by the provisions of section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the transaction is declared invalid and consequential orders are passed.

(3.) THE entries were mutated in the revenue record on 28.11.1976. Such entries were duly certified by the Mamlatdar. Similarly, another land was also subsequently purchased by the petitioners and based on the same, the entry was also mutated in the revenue record. It appears that in the year 1996, after about 20 years, Mamlatdar initiated the proceedings under section 84C of the Act on the premise that the transaction is hit by the provisions of section 84C of the Act inasmuch as the purchaser was not an agriculturist at the time when the transaction had taken place. The Mamlatdar ultimately, vide order dated 26.11.1996, set aside the sale and declared that the land be vested with the State Government and the consideration received also should be returned. The matter was carried in appeal before the Deputy Collector under section 74 of the Act. But the Deputy Collector dismissed the appeal. The matter was further carried in revision before the Revenue Tribunal and the Revenue Tribunal dismissed the revision. It is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 4.I have heard Mr.Abichandani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Patel, learned AGP for the State.