MAVJIBHAI DHARSIBHAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions involve identical questions of law and fact. They are directed against the action taken against the petitioners in each case under Sec. 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Act' for brief). The impugned order passed by the first authority, as affirmed in appeal by the appellate authority, is practically in a cyclostyled form. The impugned decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in revision is common in all revisional applications. I have, therefore, thought it fit to dispose of all these petitions by this common judgment of mine.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioners in each case have purchased certain parcels of agricultural lands from the respondents other than respondents Nos. 1 and 2 some time in 1981. The necessary entries in the Record of Rights were mutated soon thereafter and they were also certified some time in June 1981 in each case. It appears that the Mamlatdar (Record of Rights) at Gandhinagar made report on 31/03/1983 that the purchasers had their agricultural lands beyond the distance of 8 Kms. from the lands purchased by them and were residing beyond 15 Kms. therefrom. They were, therefore, not agriculturists within the meaning of Secs. 2(2) and 2(6) of the Act and the sale in each case was, therefore, to a non-agriculturist, and as such in contravention of Sec. 63 thereof. He, therefore, recommended initiation of the proceedings under Sec. 84-C thereof. Thereupon the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal at Gandhinagar the 'first authority' for convenience) issued a show-cause notice under Sec. 84-C of the Act calling upon both the petitioners and the respondents other than respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in each petition (that is, both the vendor and the vendee) why the sale transaction in each case should not be invalidated and why further action according to law should not be taken. The date of the aforesaid show-cause notice is not found mentioned anywhere in the record. It, however, transpires from the proceedings that hearing pursuant to the show-cause notice first took place on 24/08/1983. It is an admitted position on record that show-cause notice was issued pursuant to the aforesaid report of 31/03/1983 made by the Mamlatdar (Record of Rights) at Gandhinagar. It can, therefore, reasonably be inferred that the show-cause notice under Sec. 84-C of the Act might have been issued some time in or about May or June 1983, that is, nearly 2 years after the sale transaction and also nearly 2 years after the entries with respect to their sale were mutated and certified in the relvant revenue records. It appears that the petitioners in each case submitted their reply to the show-cause notice and resisted the proceedings including the initiation of the proceedings on various grounds. After hearing the parties, by his order passed on 8/02/1984 in each case, the first authority declared the sale transaction in each case to be invalid and directed the lands in question to be restored to original position and to give intimation of restoration of the original position of the lands to the first authority within 90 days therefrom. A copy of the order passed by the first authority is at Annexure B to each petition. The aggrieved petitioners in each case unsuccessfully carried the matter in appeal before the Deputy Collector at Gandhinagar. By his order passed on 9/08/1984 in each appeal, the Deputy Collector at Gandhinagar dismissed each appeal of the petitioners. A copy of the appellate order in each case is at Annexure A to each petition. The petitioners thereupon unsuccessfully invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad by means of their separate revisional applications. The revisional applications came to be registered as Revision Applications Nos. TEN. B. A. 1332 to 1345 of 1984. By its common decision rendered on 4/06/1986 in the aforesaid revisional applications, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad rejected all the revisional applications. Its copy is at Annexure 'C' to each petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order passed by the first authority at Annexure B to each petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure A to each petition and in revision by the decision at Annexure 'C' to each petition.

(3.) It would be quite proper to take stock of certain undisputed facts. The petitioners admittedly own agricultural lands beyond 8 Kms. from the lands involved in the case and are residing beyond 15 Kms. from the lands in question. The sale transaction in each case was entered into some time in 1981 and the necessary entry in the revenue records was effected soon thereafter and was certified some time in June, 1981 in each case. The show-cause notice under Sec. 84-C of the Act was presumably issued some time in May or June, 1983. The proceedings under Sec. 84-C could thus be said to have been initiated with the issue of the show-cause notice nearly 2 years after the entry in the revenue records with respect to the sale transaction in question was certified some time in June, 1981.