HEMANTKUMAR MANGUBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the notice for final disposal was issued, the matter is finally heard today.

(2.) The facts of the matter are that the petitioners purchased the agricultural land bearing Block No.307, situated in village Kasmada of Kamrej Taluka by registered sale deed dtd.16/11/1989, for which Revenue Entry was mutated in the revenue record vide Mutation Entry No.2566 on 15/1/1990. It is the further case of the petitioner that as the land was earlier purchased by Harishbhai Manchhubhai, respondent No.3 herein from Mr.Hargovanbhai Hirabhai Patel, respondent No.2 herein, and Mutation Entry No.2365 was earlier recorded in the revenue record on 4/6/1986 and thereafter the names of co-owners being respondent Nos.4 and 5 were entered into the revenue record vide Mutation Entry No.2395 dtd.12/11/1987. It appears that the District Collector, Surat on 18/10/1994 issued notice for suo-motu exercise of revisional jurisdiction under the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") read with Gujarat Land Revenue Rules on the ground that the transaction is in breach of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act") and also for the alleged breach of sec.8 of Hindu Minorities and Guardians Act and ultimately as per the order dtd.30/11/1995, the District Collector set aside the entries. The matter was carried before the State Government by preferring Revision Application. It is the case of the petitioners that the advocate of the petitioners could not remain present on the date fixed for hearing but it appears that ultimately on 28/4/2004, the State Government decided the revision whereby the revision is dismissed. It is also the case of the petitioners that in the meantime, the tenancy proceedings initiated under sec.84-C of the Tenancy Act have been concluded in favour of the petitioners as per order dtd.15/1/2004 passed by the Mamlatdar and consequently the proceedings under sec.84-C of the Tenancy Act are dropped and the notice is withdrawn and it is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by preferring this petition.

(3.) Upon hearing Mr.Mehta learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Desai, learned AGP for the respondents authorities, it appears that there is no dispute on the point that the petitioners have purchased the property by registered sale deed. There is also no dispute on the point that the entries came to be cancelled on the ground of breach of the provisions of the Tenancy Act and also the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardians Act. There is also no dispute on the point that ultimately in the proceedings under the Tenancy Act, order dtd.15/1/2004 has been passed by the Mamlatdar whereby the proceedigns are dropped and the notice under sec.84-C of the Tenancy Act is withdrawn. However, Mr.Desai learned Asst.Govt.Pleader submitted that as in the order of the Mamlatdar passed under sec.84-C of the Tenancy Act, it has been stated that the said order is subject to the final order which may be passed by the Special Secretary of the State Government in revision which was pending at the relevant point of time; and as now the State Government has decided the revision against the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners would not be entitled to the benefits of order passed by the Mamlatdar under the Tenancy Act.