BECHARBHAI DHANRAJBHAI ANJANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A dishonest petitioner is before this Court challenging an order passed by Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat Government, Ahmedabad on 17.8.2000. On perusal of the order, this Court puts its word of appreciation for the labour undertaken by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals). The petitioner is affected by the order two fold, mainly, by the order by which the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), has asked the concerned authorities to take necessary action with regard to land bearing Survey Nos.86/C and 86/D making it clear that if the allotment of these 2 survey numbers is contrary to 'standing orders' and the provisions of 'Prevention of Fragmentation Act'. This Court cannot be a party to an attempt on the part of the petitioner to frustrate the order passed by the authorities which is absolutely in accordance with law. The authority has stated in the order that the land bearing Survey No. 86 was 30 Acres and 4 Guntahs.

(2.) The learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court and submitted that the measurement is not correctly mentioned. Be that as it may. The question remains that the petitioner was granted 6 Acres and 30 Gunthas. In the order under challenge also, the authority has said that 6 Acres and 30 Gunthas of land should remain with the petitioner. That being so, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the order of the Deputy Secretary (Appeals). The real trouble caused to the petitioner is by a grant of land in faovur of Lala Harkha. He was granted 19 Acres of land on certain terms and conditions. As there was breach of condition, there was resumption of land. But later again land was granted to said Shri Lala Harkha. In between, 'resumption of land' and 're-grant of land', survey No.86 came to be divided into 4 parts i.e. 86/A and 86/B on one side of the road and 86/C and 86/D on the other side. A road leading to Ambaji passed through Sruvey No.86. So far as regrant to Lala Harkha is concerned, there is no dispute. There apppears to be some error in the measurement and the survey number. It has come on record that at the time of initial grant of land to Lala Harkha, survey number mentioned was 86/1 and the area mentioned was 19 Acres.

(3.) Now, Deputy Secretary (Appeals) has very specifically noted that on one side of the road i.e. on the side on which 86/A and 86/B, are located land ad-measures 25 Acres and 17 Gunthas. Out of that 6 Acres and 30 Gunthas was initially granted to the petitioner i.e. Dhanraj Hathi (his heirs are before this Court). The authority has specifically mentioned that out of 25 Acres and 17 Gunthas, 6 Acres and 30 Gunthas has to be given to the petitioner and remaining land which is 18 Acres and 37 Gunthas has to go to Lala Harkha. It is clear from the order that the authority is conscious that though in the original order of grant of land, it was mentioned as 19 Acres now it is only 18 Acres and 37 Gunthas available and he should be entitled to 18 Acres and 37 Gunthas only. It is the case of the petitioner that land bearing Survey No. 86/C and 86/D were granted to him subsequently. Now, if C and D are fragments then they must be governed by the applicable rules and laws. That is why, the authority, is well within its bounds in issuing the order to the effect that Survey Nos. 86/C and 86/D be dealt according to law. If the grant of these two parcles of land is contrary to the standing orders as well as Prevention of Fragmentation Act, the concerned authority must take necessary steps in this regard. The learned advocate for the petitioner wants this part of the order to be quashed.