STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VISHNOI BHARMAL HEMAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, State authorities have challenged the legality and validity of the orders passed by the revenue authorities below and to be precise, prayed for following reliefs:-

(2.) The background of facts which has been mentioned in the petition is that respondents herein are agriculturists of the land situated at village Nenava, Taluka Dhanera and holding Survey No.31 admeasuring 6 Acres and 29 Gunthas and Survey No.329 admeasuring 26 Acres and 22 Gunthas. Brother of respondent Vishnoi Vardha Harji had purchased the land from one Mahadev Sonabhai Patel and to this effect, entry has been effected in the revenue record being entry No.442 mutated on 22/6/1976. It was found by an authority that purchaser happened to be a non- agriculturist and therefore, entry came to be rejected. But later on, on 30/7/1980, emtry No.529 was mutated in the name of Vardha Harji and Hema Harji. It is the case of petitioners that Hema Harji expired, as a result of which legal heirs were mutated vide entry No.712 dtd. 6/10/1987 and names of Bharmal Hema, Babu Hema, Bhagwan Hema and Jiva Hema were mutated and names of present respondent Nos.2 to 6 have also been entered in the revenue record by entry No.858 made on 15/1/1991. According to petitioners, by recognizing only two persons, i.e. Vishnoi Vardha Harji and Hema Harji as agricultural labourers, their names were mutated in the revenue record after complying the proceedings under Sec. 63, but other respondents were not agriculturists and as such finding said situation, notice was issued under Sec. 84(C) of Tenancy Act upon present respondents. Hearing had taken place before learned Mamlatdar & ALT pursuant to said notice in which, Tenancy Case No.228 of 1997 was registered and came to be decided by order dtd. 29/5/1999. Learned Mamlatdar & ALT had decided that respondents are not agriculturists and as such land was ordered to be vested with Government since there appears to be violation of Sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with said order, present respondents filed an appeal before learned Deputy Collector, being Appeal No.2 of 2000 and after hearing both the sides, order passed by learned Mamlatdar & ALT came to be confirmed. Said order passed by learned Deputy Collector was made subject matter of challenge before Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by preferring Revision Application No.TEN/BA/67 of 2000, which after hearing the parties came to be allowed vide order dtd. 27/2/2009 and the Revisional Authority was pleased to set aside the orders passed by learned Mamlatdar & ALT as well as learned Deputy Collector and it is this order which has been passed by learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is made the subject matter of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.