HARKHABHAI DAHYABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Assistant Collector at Dhrangadhra on 4th November 1981 in Ceiling Revision Case No. 297 of 1981 as affirmed in revision by the decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) on 17th September 1982 in Revision Application No.TEN.B.A. 1189 of 1981 is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, the Assistant Collector at Dhrangadhra in exercise of his revisional powers under section 37 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (the Act for brief) upset the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (Ceiling) of Dasada taluka at Patdi (the first authority for convenience) on 19th March 1981 in Ceiling Case No. 129 (Gawana) declaring that the petitioner's holding was not in excess of the ceiling area fixed under the Act.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner was found holding certain parcels of land in all admeasuring 72 acres 27 gunthas situated in village Gawana taluka Dasada district Surendranagar (the disputed lands for convenience) on 1st April 1976. The ceiling area fixed under the Act for that local area is 54 acres. The first authority thereupon undertook the necessary inquiry under Section 20 thereof. It came to be registered as Ceiling Case No. 129 (Gawana). In the course of the inquiry, the petitioner was found having one major son. The first authority thereupon came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to hold two ceiling units equivalent to 108 acres of land and, since the petitioner's holding was to the tune of 72 acres 27 gunthas, his holding was not in excess of the ceiling area for the purposes of the Act. Apropos, the first authority passed the necessary order on 19th March 1981 in Ceiling Case No. 129 (Gawana). Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. It appears that the aforesaid order at Annexure-A to this petition came to the notice of the Assistant Collector at Dhrangadhra. He found it not to be according to law. In exercise of his suo motu revisional powers under Section 37 of the Act, he initiated the proceedings thereunder. It came to be registered as Ceiling Revision Case No.297 of 1981. After hearing the parties, by his order passed on 4th November 1981 in Ceiling Revision Case No.297 of 1981, he quashed and set aside the order at Annexure-A to this petition on the ground that the petitioner had no major son on 1st April 1976 and was therefore not entitled to any separate unit for that son. A copy of the aforesaid order passed by the Assistant Collector at Dhrangadhra is at Annexure-B to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner thereupon invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal by means of his Revision Application No.TEN.B.A.l 189 of 1981. By its decision rendered on 17th September 1982 therein, the Tribunal rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. The petitioner has thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure-B to this petition as affirmed in revision by the decision at Annexure-C to this petition.

(3.) The dispute centres round the age of the petitioner's son named Mahadevbhai as on 1st April 1976. There were on record two certifictes showing different birthdates of said Mahadevbhai. One certificate was issued by the Principal of the Primary School at Gawana showing the birthdate of the student to be 1st June 1961. The other was issued by the Vaccinator Supervisor of the Primary Health Centre at Patdi showing the age of said Mahadevbhai to be of nine months on 30th March 1958 on the date on which primary vaccination was effected on the child. The Assistant Collector as well as the Tribunal has chosen to rely on the certificate issued by the school authority in preference to the one issued by the Vaccinator Supervisor. The question raised before me is which certificate deserves to be given primacy.