MADHUBEN NENABHAI ASODIYA Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As many as 19 persons, all residents of Prantij, are before this Court challenging legality and validity of the order passed by respondent No.4-Secretary (Appeals) dated 16.02.1995, whereby NA permission granted by District Development Officer, Sabarkantha is cancelled and an order is passed to the effect that respondent No.3 - Deputy Collector, Modasa shall take over the land in question to the Government Head. As there were threats from the respondent authorities to remove the residential houses of the petitioners, the petitioners are before this Court.

(2.) The facts leading to the present proceedings are set out in para-3 of the petition. For ready perusal, the same is reproduced hereunder:-

(3.) Learned Advocate Ms.Archana Patel for learned Advocate Mr.J.V.Japee for the petitioners invited attention of the Court to the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) dated 09.03.1995, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-H. In the opening para of the said order, one of the grounds on which the authority decided to cancel the transfer of sale is that, "the land in question, purchased by Shri Revashankar Pandya, was not the agriculturist and therefore, he could not have purchased this land. Besides that, he was not holding agricultural land within 8 km. radius of the land in question and therefore, the transaction was in violation of the provisions of Section 2(7) and Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act". Besides second ground taken into consideration is that, "from the extracts of village form No.7/12, it is noticed that the land had remained fallow for a period of more than 2 years consecutively". In addition to the aforesaid grounds, the authority has also taken into considration that, "the land was of new tenure land and of restricted tenure as it was given to one Laxmigauri Sumanchandra Nathalal under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act".