PARIKH KALABHAI BADABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Assistant Collector at Dhrangadhra (the first authority for convenience) on 27th May, 1981 in Ceiling Case No. 253 of 1977 as affirmed in revision by the decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad ('the Tribunal' for convenience) on 11th August, 1982 in Revision Application No.TEN. B.A. 558 of 1981 is under challenge in this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, the first authority rejected the present petitioner's application under Sec. 8(2) of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 ('the Act' for brief) for declaration that the transfer of his three parcels of land bearing survey Nos. 363 admeasuring 4 acres 12 gunthas on 26th June, 1973, survey No. 321 admeasuring 16 acres 7 gunthas on 15th June, 1972 and survey No. 417 admeasuring 5 acres 8 gunthas on 5th May 1974 was not made with a view to defeating the object of the Act in any manner.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the petition move in a narrow compass. The original petitioner (the deceased for convenience) transferred some three parcels of land to certain persons between the period from 24th January, 1971 to 31st March, 1976. The details in that regard may be summarised thus. The land bearing survey No. 363 admeasuring 4 acres 12 gunthas situated in village Patdi was transferred in favour of Shambhuprasad Somabhai on 26th June, 1973 for Rs.1,750, the land bearing survey No. 321 admeasuring 16 acres 7 gunthas situated in the same village was transferred in favour of Prabhubhai Somabhai and Narsibhai Parsottambhai on 15th June, 1972 for Rs. 20,000 and the land bearing survey No. 417 situated in village Savlas admeasuring 5 acres 8 gunthas was transferred in favour of Naranbhai Rambhai on 15th May, 1974 for Rs. 3,500. As aforesaid, since the transfers were made between 24th January, 1971 and 3lst March, 1976, a presumption would arise that they were made in order to defeat the object of the Act. It appears that the holding of the deceased at the relevant time was in excess of the ceiling area. There is, however, nothing on record to come to that conclusion at this stage. In order to rebut the prersumption arsing under Sec. 8(1) of the Act, the deceased made one application in the prescribed form under Sec. 8(2) thereof on 26th July l976. It appears to have been assigned to the first authority for hearing and disposal. It came to be registered as Ceiling Case No. 253 of l977. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, by his order passed on 27th May, l98l in Ceiling Case No. 253 of l977, the first authority rejected the application under Sec. 8(2) of the Act made by the deceased. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. The aggrieved deceased carried the matter in revision before the Tribunal by means of his Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 558 of l98l. By its decision rendered on 11th August, 1982 in the aforesaid revisional application, the Tribunal rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. The aggrieved deceased thereupon moved this Court by means of this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-A to this petition as affirmed in revision by the impugned decision at Annexure-B to this petition. During the pendency of this petition before this Court, the deceased breathed his last leaving behind him the present petitioners as his heirs and legal representatives.

(3.) Shri Zaveri for the petitioners has urged that the entire approach of the first authority as well as the Tribunal in appreciating the evidence on record was in question were made with a view to defeating the object of the Act. The grievance voiced by Shri Zaveri for the petitioners is that the approach of the first authority as well as the Tribunal was as if the deceased was required to establish his bona fides and genuineness behind the transfers in question beyond any reasonable doubt as the prosecution has to do in a criminal proceeding. According to Shri Zaveri for the petitioners, the deceased examined all the transferees in support of his case and also certain other witnesses who un-equivocally stated before the concerned authority that the transfers were bona fide and genuine for meeting the deceased petitioner's need for collecting funds to the tune of something like Rs. 25,000 for creating a boring in the fields which he wanted to retain in his holding. Shri Zaveri for the petitioners has made a further grievance that the first authority as well as the Tribunal has not considered one major piece of evidence to the effect that the land bearing survey No. 417 at Savlas admeasuring 5 acres 8 gunthas was required to be sold also on the ground that it was at a considerable distance from his village Patdi and he was facing nuisance from wild animals. As against this, Smt. Shaikh for the respondent has urged that both the first authority and the Tribunal have carefully appreciated the evidence on record and have concurrently come to the conclusion that the transfers in question were with a view to defeating the object of the Act, and as such this Court cannot and need not interfere with that conclusion of fact reached by the first authority and the Tribunal in exercise of its limited powers under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.