LAWS(GJH)-2013-2-369

SHAFI ISMAIL PATUK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On February 06, 2013
Shafi Ismail Patuk Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has purchased the land admeasuring 62.70.97 sq.mtrs on 07.01.1985 from Devisinh Suthal Vahoniya, who admittedly belong to scheduled tribe. The respondent No.3 Deputy Collector issued a notice in the year 1996 seeking a cause from the petitioner as to why the sale deed by virtue of which the land in question was acquired be not annulled for the petitioner having violated Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code ( for short "Code") which prohibited alienation of the land of tribal unless permitted by the Collector. The petitioner explained the cause to the respondent No.3 but the respondent No.3 was not convinced and ultimately an order under Section 73AA of the Code came to be passed forfeiting the petitioner's land as also imposed a penalty of Rs.30,000/. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner ultimately approached the Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue Appeals), State of Gujarat being respondent No.1 herein, who also confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court.

(2.) TWO contentions were sought to be raised i.e. (1) with regard to the authority of Deputy Collector in issuing the showcause notice, and (2) the reasonable time within which the powers under Section 73AA of the Code were exercisable. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would press the second contention as the said point has been covered by the decision rendered in Patel Maganbhai Kesurbhai Since Decd. through his heirs Vs. Bhogilal Punjabhai Vasava and others [ 1998(2) GLR 961 ].

(3.) LEARNED AGP Mr.K.P.Raval for the respondent would submit that the said transaction was against the purport of Section 73AA of the Code. The object of the Act was to provide a protection to tribals against the loss of their lands. He, therefore, submitted that, even if the construction was put up by the petitioner, the powers were reasonably exercised since the petitioner could not have pleaded ignorance of law which specifically prohibited such transactions.