ALARAKHIBEN YAKUBBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Additional Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal at Dhrangadhra ('the First Authority' for convenience) on 28th November, 1980 in Ceiling Case No. 381 of 1976-77 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Deputy Collector at Dhrangadhra ('the-Appellate Authority' for convenience) on 30th March, 1989 in Ceiling Appeal No. 5 of 1988-89 as further affirmed in revision by the decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad ('the Tribunal' for convenience) on 23rd November, 1992 in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 513 of 1989 is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order the First Authority declared the holding of the brother of the petitioner to be in excess of the ceiling area by 10 acres 28 gunthas and declared in all 11 acres 37 gunthas of lands to be surplus vesting in the State Government free from all encumbrances in view of the relevant provisions contained in Section 18 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 ('the Act' for brief).

(2.) This litigation has a somewhat chequered history. Respondent No. 2 herein is the petitioner's real brother. He was found holding lands in all admeasuring 64 acres 26 gunthas in village Jainabad Taluka Dasada District Surendranagar ('the disputed lands' for convenience). The ceiling area fixed for that local area under the Act is 54 acres. Thereupon the First Authority undertook the necessary inquiry under Sec. 21 of the Act. It came to be registered as Ceiling Case No. 381 of 1976-77. By his order passed on 28th November, 1980 in Ceiling Case No. 381 of 1976-77 the First Authority came to the conclusion that the holding of the petitioner's brother (respondent No. 2 herein) was in excess of the ceiling area by 10 acres 26 gunthas of lands and declared in all 11 acres 37 gunthas to be surplus vesting in the State Government free from all encumbrances in view of the relevant provisions contained in Sec. 18 of the Act. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. Respondent No. 2 appears to have carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority by means of his Ceiling Appeal No. 26 of 1981-82. By his order passed on 9th October, 1981 in the aforesaid appeal, it came to be dismissed as time-barred. Respondent No. 2 thereupon carried the matter in revision before the Tribunal by means of his Revision Application No. 1232 of 1981. By its decision rendered on 13th December, 1982 in the aforesaid revisional application, the Appellate order came to be set aside and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for his fresh decision according to law. By his order passed on 14th April, 1983, the Appellate Authority again dismissed the aforesaid appeal preferred by Respondent No. 2 herein. He thereupon carried the matter again in revision before the Tribunal by means of his Revision Application No.TEN. B.A. 1059 of 1983. It came to be rejected for default of appearance by the order passed by the Tribunal on 17th April, 1986. It appears to have been restored to file on an application made by Respondent No. 2 herein. By its decision rendered on 30th September, 1986 in the aforesaid revisional application, the Tribunal rejected it. It appears that thereafter the present petitioner moved the Appellate Authority by means of her tenancy Appeal No. 5 of 1988- 89 questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure-B to this petition. By his order passed on 30th March, 1989 in Ceiling Appeal No. 5 of 1988-89, the Appellate Authority dismissed it as time-barred. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in revision before the Tribunal by means of her Revision Application No. TEN. B.A.513 of 1989. By its decision rendered on 23rd November, 1992 in the aforesaid revisional application, the Tribunal rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon knocked the doors of this Court by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure-B to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the Appellate order at Annexure-C to this petition as further affirmed in revision by the decision at Annexure-D to this petition.

(3.) The case of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and before the Tribunal was to the effect that the lands mutated in the name of respondent No. 2 herein originally belonged to the father of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and on the death of the father both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 inherited the properties of the deceased in accordance with the rules of succession under the Muslim Law. According to the petitioner, her father died some time in 1945 and thereupon she along with her brother (respondent No. 2 herein) inherited the properties left by the deceased and both the brother and the sister became tenants in common qua the disputed lands. This aspect of the case has not been considered by the Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal and that is the grievance voiced by the present petitioner in this petition before me.