SANATKUMAR VISHNUBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the occupant of the agricultural land, admeasuring 0.85.95 square meters of Survey No.97/2 of Village Tandel of Tal. Nadiad. This land was purchased by the petitioner on 19/09/1981 and thereafter an entry in the record of rights was mutated in favour of the petitioner on 22/09/1982. It is the petitioner's case that he had been cultivating the said land from 1982 to 1999. However, the Deputy Collector, slapped a notice under Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short the Act) on 06/03/1998 alleging that the land in question was not being used by the petitioner for agricultural purpose for continuous period of more than two years and, therefore, it was stated that in exercise of powers conferred upon the competent authority under Section 65 of the Act, the respondents are entitled to assume the possession of the land in question.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner while inviting the reference to the showcause notice Annexure ­ F and reply thereto at Annexure ­ G, as also, the impugned order and Section 65 of the Act, submitted that the findings rendered by the respondents are contrary to evidence on record and the explanation given by the petitioner was totally misconstrued. He also submitted that Section 65 of the Act aims at optimum use of the agricultural land and it is only if the default is voluntary that Section 65 can be invoked but not if circumstances were beyond the control of the holder of the land. He further submitted that Section 65 of the Act contemplates a mere assumption of management of the land and not a total deprivation of possession but by the impugned order the petitioner has been deprived of the possession of the land in question. He further submitted that under the aforesaid circumstances, slapping of a notice after a period of 13 years of alleged existence of a factory, is nothing but arbitrary exercise of powers by respondents. In his submission, therefore, impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) HAVING considered documentary evidence, as also the oral submissions made before this Court, it is crystal clear that the respondents had not appreciated the documentary evidence, as also the reply furnished by the petitioner in its true spirit. It cannot be disputed that in the report of Mamlatdar dated 07/11/1998, it was clearly mentioned that the land in question was vacant i.e. there was no factory. Thus, the petitioner successfully established the above aspect. But, the respondents came out with the reason that the entry made in 198384 and 198485 showing the existence of factory was not wrong. This approach appears to be in ignorance of and contrary to the record of the revenue authority itself (report of the Mamlatdar dated 07/11/1998).