MUKUNDBHAI AMRUTLAL SAYANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. Chinmay Gandhi, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondents No.2.1, 2.4, 3 and 4.1 to 4.5. Mr. Viral Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1.

(2.) HAVING regard to the controversy involved in the present case which lies in a very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing today.

(3.) THE facts of the case stated briefly are that lands bearing Survey No.394 of mauje Thaltej, taluka Daskroi came to be purchased by the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 3rd March, 1981 from Shri Harshadbhai Chandubhai Patel, Shantaben Chandubhai Patel and Chandubhai Jivabhai Patel. Pursuant thereto, Mutation Entry No.5631 came to be made in the revenue record which came to be certified on 28 th March, 1981. Subsequently, in the year 1987, the Mamlatdar and ALT initiated proceedings under section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act") in Tenancy Case No.76/1987. By an order dated 25th November, 1988, the Mamlatdar and ALT held that the transaction in favour of the petitioner was in breach of the provisions of sections 32, 43 and 63 of the Tenancy Act and he accordingly held the transaction in question to be in breach of the provisions of section 84C of the Tenancy Act and ordered the lands to be vested in the State Government. Being aggrieved, the petitioner went in appeal to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Tenancy Appeal No.23/1989. Vide an order dated 20 th November, 1989, the Deputy Collector allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar. Against the said order, the respondents No.2 (a) to (d), 3 and 4 preferred a revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. By the impugned order, the revision application came to be partly allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector and remanding the matter to the Mamlatdar for deciding the same afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.