BABLABHAI VESLABHAI GAMIT Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR VYARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Vyara and Special Secretary, Revenue Department, respectively on 24/07/1979 and 13/03/1980.

(2.) As per Annexure 'A' Notice dated 4/12/1978 came to be addressed to the petitioner to the effect that the land bearing Survey No. 166/2 and 79 of village Khuntadiya was transferred to the petitioner by Aghriben Dasariya, residing at Paniyari, Taluka Vyara, District Surat in contravention of Sec. 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, and therefore he was liable to be evicted from the said land, After hearing the petitioner the Deputy Collector came to the conclusion that there was no contiguous land of the petitioner so as to hold that the transaction of Transferring the land in question entered into by the petitioner was saved. The Deputy Collector, Vyara, therefore declared the transaction being illegal and imposed penalty of Rs. 250.00 on the land owner and directed eviction of the petitioner from the land in question under Sec. 9(3) of the Act. The petitioner bad carried the matter in Appeal before the Special Secretary and after hearing him the Special Secretary also came to the conclusion that there was violation of Sec. 7 of the Act. In answer to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that there was no notice issued under Sec. 6(2) of the Act, it has been observed that the respondent No. 2 has stated in his reply dated 21-12-1978 before the Deputy Collector that he had no objection with regard to the declaration of the land being a fragment land and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to take objection with regard to notice under Sec. 6(2) of the Act. The Special Secretary there-fore rejected the Revision Application. The result is that the petitioner was required to move this Court as aforesaid.

(3.) The short question which has been pressed into service by Mr. H. M. Mehta, is that no objection stated on 26-12-1978 does not meet with the requirement of law as per Sec. 6(2) of the Act. Section 6 of the Act reads as under :