VALLABH KESHAV PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (Ceiling) at Babra (the first authority for convenience) on 14th November, 1980 in Ceiling Case No. 168 of 1976 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Assistant Collector at Amreli on 24th September 1982 in Ceiling Appeal No. 5 of 1982 as further affirmed in revision and review by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad by its decisions rendered on 25th November, 1983 and 4th July, 1984 in Revision Application No.TEN. B.R.14 of 1983 and Review Application No. TEN. C.R. 5 of 1984 respectively is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, the first authority declared the holding of respondent No. 2 herein to be in excess of the ceiling area by 2 acres 28 gunthas of lands.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 2 was found to be holding certain parcels of land in all admeasuring 53 acres 13 gunthas in village Shakhpur laluka Lathi district Amreli (the disputed lands for convenience). The first authority thereupon undertook the necessary inquiry under section 20 of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 (the Act for brief). It came to be registered as Ceiling Case No. 168 of 1976. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, by his order passed on 14 November, 1980 in Ceiling Case No. 168 of 1976, the first authority declared the holding of respondent No. 2 to be in excess of the ceiling area by 2 acres 28 gunthas. The surplus land was ordered to be carved out from his holding of survey No. 360/1 as desired by him. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. It appears that respondent No. 2 unsuccessfully carried the matter in appeal and in revision. It appears that the petitioners herein purchased 7 acres 32 gunthas of lands from survey No. 360/1 belonging to respondent No. 2 from the latter. It appears that the surplus land declared by the first authority was sought to be carved out from the aforesaid land bearing survey No. 360/1 sold by him to the present petitioners. It appears that they came to know of the order at Annexure-A to this petition and they therefore carried the matter in appeal before the Assistant Collector at Amreli. Their appeal came to be registered as Ceiling Appeal No. 5 of 1982. By his order passed on 24th September, 1982 in Ceiling Appeal No. 5 of 1982, the Assistant Collector at Amreli dismissed it as time-barred. The aggrieved petitioners thereupon unsuccessfully invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad by means of their Revision Application No. TEN. B.R. 14 of 1983. By its decision rendered on 25th November 1983 in the aforesaid revisional application, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. The petitioners made an unsuccessful attempt to get the decision at Annexure-C to this petition reviewed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad by means of their Review Application No. TEN. C.R. 5 of 1984. By its decision rendered on 4th July, 1984 in the aforesaid Review Application, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-A to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-B to this petition and as further affirmed in revision and review by the decisions at Annexures-C and D respectively to this petition.

(3.) It is an admitted position on record that the petitioners purchased a parcel of land admeasuring 7 acres 32 gunthas from survey No. 360/1 belonging to respondent No.2 on 19th December, 1977. By that time, the proceedings under section 20 of the Act had already come to be initiated against respondent No. 2 to find out whether or not his holding exceeded the ceiling area prescribed thereunder. It appears that the petitioners did not make any inquiry in that regard. They appear to have overlooked the well known principle of caveat emptor or "Buyer beware". They ought to have made the necessary inquiries before purchasing the land in question from respondent No. 2 on 19th December, 1977. It appears that they have been duped by respondent No.2 herein with respect to the sale transaction. Their remedy against respondent No. 2 presumably lies elsewhere as advised.