PARSHOTTAMBHAI MANILAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocates for the parties. The petitioner by way of this petition has approached this Court invoking provision of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with following prayers.

(2.) THE facts in brief leading to filing this petition as could be culled -out from the memo of the petition deserve to be set out as under.

(3.) THE petitioner owned a land bearing Block No.1236 at Village Vadsar, Taluka Kalol, admeasuring 1 Acre 15 Gunthas and 36 Are. The petitioner sold the said land to respondent nos.3 and 4 by a registered sale deed dated 23rd January, 1991, which bears document no.179. Pursuant to the aforesaid sale deed, the names of respondent nos.3 and 4 came to be mutated in the revenue record by Talati in Village Form No.6 being Entry No.1588 on 4th October, 1991. The said entry has been certified by the Certifying Officer with an endorsement that the notice under the provision of Rule 135 -D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code has been duly served upon the respective parties. The petitioners say in the memo of the petition is that the purchasers respondent nos.3 and 4 being not agriculturists, they could not have purchased the said land. The concerned Mamlatdar, Kalol vide his letter dated 18th March, 1992 made reference to Deputy Collector, Mehsana indicating the facts that the entry, which has been made by Entry No.1583 to 1587 and Certifying Officer is not in consonance with the provision of law, as the purchasers of agricultural land are not agriculturists and therefore, there was a violation of provision of Section 73 and Section 67 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and therefore, proceedings under Section 84 -C may be initiated, which accordingly were directed. The Mamlatdar, thereafter, issued a notice and passed an order in Tenancy Case No.84C/Vad/677/94 dated 06/05/1994 ordering land being vested by the Government by Entry no.1236. It was noted that the notice served upon respondent nos.3 and 4, but they did not remain present before the ALT nor did they furnish the documents that they were agriculturists and after making detail inquiry with Village Lakhama and Boyana, he came to the conclusion that the respondent nos.3 and 4 were not agriculturists. The appeal was preferred before the Dy. Collector challenging the said order, who remanded the matter vide order dated 29th April, 1995 to Mamlatdar and ALT with a direction that after giving notices to all the concerned, the concerned Mamlatdar and ALT, Kalol initiated fresh proceedings and issued fresh notice on 31st July, 1995 and matter was fixed on 10th August, 1995. On 17th October, 1995, the respondent nos.3 and 4 approached the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal against the order by Dy. Collector (Land Reforms) Mehsana. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent nos.3 and 4 on 15th March, 1996 and set aside the order passed by Dy. Collector and also the order passed by Mamlatdar and ALT dated 06/05/1994. The present petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.2300 of 1996 before this Court challenging the order of Tribunal. The matter is admitted and on 3rd April, 2996 an ad interim relief was granted as prayed for. The concerned Collector, Mehsana issued suo motu notice under Rule 108 (6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 for certifying the Entry No.1583, 1584, 1585, 1586, 1587 and 1588 dated 15th November, 1991. The petitioner also received notice, but could not remain present before the Collector. The matter was adjourned to 17th March, 1993 and 24th March, 1993 and 6th April, 1995. The concerned Collector has set aside the Entry Nos.1583 to 1588. The said order was challenged by respondent nos.3 and 4 before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gandhinagar bearing No.11 of 1995, which came to be decided by the Dy. Secretary (Appeals) dismissing the same, confirming the order dated 31st May, 1994. The petitioner on this basis preferred the application to the Revenue Tribunal in the form of Review Application saying that in view of the order passed by the State, the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal was not maintainable as the appeal filed by the respondent nos.3 and 4 was against the provision of law and was not maintainable. The said application came to be dismissed by the Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 17th November, 1995, which came to be received by the petitioner in the last week of December 1999. The petitioners petition was permitted to be withdrawn as the petitioner was before the tribunal.