ISHWARBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that the predecessors i.e. the private respondents were the owners and occupiers of the land admeasuring 37,332 sq.mtrs., forming part of Block No.97 of village Ahmedpura, Taluka Bayad, Dist. Sabarkantha. There are other 17 individuals, who are also holding their respective lands in the same block. The petitioners purchased the said land by a registered sale deed dtd. 20/6/1997 and an entry to that effect being Entry No.706 was mutated in the revenue records and was certified on 21/10/1997. In the year 2013, the Mamlatdar, Bayad initiated proceedings under the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short "Fragmentation Act") and thereafter, the Prant Officer, Bayad vide order dtd. 12/8/2013 concluded that the sale transaction, which was made in favour of the petitioners, is contrary to the provisions of the Fragmentation Act more particularly, under Sec. 9(1) thereof and further, directed the petitioners to pay costs of Rs.250.00 and also ordered to restore the original position of the land. Being aggrieved, the petitioners assailed the said order by filing Revision Application No.MVV/CON/SDR/10/2013 before the respondent No.2 - Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD). The revision application came up for hearing for interim relief and in the month of November, 2013 the petitioners were granted interim injunction in their favour. Thereafter, by the impugned order, the SSRD dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioners.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Raval appearing for the petitioners, at the outset, has submitted that the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside since the Prant Officer, Bayad had initiated the proceedings under the Fragmentation Act by exercising suo moto powers, after passage of more than 15 years. It is submitted that by the judgement and order of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Labhubhai Valjibhai Gajera Vs. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Dept., Gujarat State and Ors., 2011 (1) GLH 432 that the Division Bench has set aside such exercise of powers under the Fragmentation Act on the ground of delay, as the proceedings were initiated after a period of 3 years. He has placed reliance in the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Paliben Wd/o Kikubhai Kuvariyabhai Koli Patel Vs. Dy Collector, Valsad , 2013 (1) GLR 231. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned orders may be set aside.