BHAGWANDAS VALLABHRAO KHATRI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order of the Deputy Collector passed on 9/07/1974 whereby the Deputy Collector, after holding an inquiry and giving the petitioner an opportunity of having his say found that there was sufficient warrant for taking over the management of the disputed lands under Sec. 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), since the disputed lands though cultivable were lying fallow since 1951-52.

(2.) Though the order was made on 9-7-1974, for assumption of management of the disputed land which remained uncultivated, the petitioner challenged that order only in April, 1982 when he filed this petition. The petitioner was by a letter dated 3/05/1975 already informed by the Government that if he felt aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Collector, he could approach the competent Court of law. That communication is at Annexure "D" to the petition. It has been contended in the petition that the Deputy Collector had simply passed the order under Sec. 65 on 29-9-1975 for taking over the possession of the disputed land for management without fixing the period for such management and therefore, the whole procedure in taking over the management was illegal. It would be quashing the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Vadodara on 9-7-1974 for resumption of management of certain lands. seen from the provisions of Sec. 65 of the Act that the declaration made under sub-sec. (1) is conclusive. In the instant case, admittedly, notice was issued on the petitioner on 10/04/1972, a copy of which is at Annexure "B" to the petition and the petitioner was called upon to show cause why proceedings under Sec. 65 of the Act should not be taken since the disputed land had remained uncultivated since 1951-52. The petitioner gave his reply dated 20/04/1972 to the show cause notice and contended that the land was not cultivable and even grass did not grow in it because of the salty terrain. The Deputy Collector by considering the material on record found that the land was cultivable and the adjoining Survey Nos. 3, 6/1, 6/2, 40, 44 and 5/3 were being cultivated. Finding that the land had remained uncultivated, though it was cultivable, the Deputy Collector made the order dated 9-7-1974 presumably in exercise of the powers of the Government under Sec. 65 which were delegated to him vide R. D. notification No. MGT-5857/108218-M dated 19-8-1958 (referred to at page 463 of K. S. Gupta's Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 10th Edition). In view of the finding of the Deputy Collector that the land was cultivable, the contention raised by the petitioner that it was impossible for him to cultivate the land, cannot be accepted. There was therefore, sufficient warrant for the exercise of powers under Sec. 65 for assuming the management of the land. The fact that time was not fixed under the impugned order of the Deputy Collector will not vitiate the order because Sec. 65(1) speaks of declaration that the management of such land shall be assumed and does not require any time limit to be fixed, while issuing such order. Rule 35 of the Tenancy Rules, on which reliance is placed in the petition, also will not vitiate the order because it does not require (hat time should be fixed while making the declaration under Sec. 65(1) of the Act. The question of fixing the period for continuance of the management of the estate assumed under Sec. 65 can be decided on the basis of subsequent report which is required to be made by the manager before 31st March, following the year in which the management was assumed. Therefore, it was necessary to fix the time limit beforehand when the period for which the management of the land was assumed, while making the declaration to that effect under Sec. 65 of the Act. In any event, the assumption of management will not become invalid only by virtue of the period of management not being fixed while passing the order of assumption of management which of course, will be subject to the statutorily prescribed aggregate period.

(3.) The petitioner has, therefore, failed to make out any case for the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of this Court and the impugned action appears to be justified and warranted by the provisions of Sec. 65 of the Act. It may incidentally be mentioned that the cognate matter being Special Civil Application No. 2021 of 1980 with which this petition was ordered to be heard, was decided on 17-11-1990 and that petition was rejected. This petition, therefore, fails. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.