SAIYED H SARFULLA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter had come up for hearing on 29.10.04 and Mr.Gori, Ld.AGP was directed to appear on behalf of respondent State and the Collector and he has appeared today and the matter is finally heard today.

(2.) The petitioners have preferred this petition challenging the order dated 11.2.2002 passed by the Collector and its confirmation thereof by the State Govt as per order dated 29.6.04/30.9.04 in revision whereby the Entry No.6977, dated 25.8.92 and subsequent Entry No.8480, dated 22.2.2000 are cancelled in the revenue record of the land in question.

(3.) Upon hearing Mr.Pahwa for the petitioners and Mr.Gori, Ld.AGP for respondent authorities, it appears that the Entry No.6977 came to be cancelled by the Dist.Collector on the ground that the first purchaser Minakshiben Arunkumar Modi is not an agriculturist and as a consequence thereof the subsequent transaction vide Entry No.8480 which pertains to the purchase of land by the petitioners is also cancelled. It is the case of the petitioners that as such the petitioners are the agriculturists and it can not be said that the transaction is in breach of provisions of section 84C of Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). It appears that there is no dispute on the point that the issue involved in this petition is covered by the decision of this court dated 28.9.04 in case of Jayantilal Jethalal Soni vs State of Gujarat and others in SCA No.12547/04 whereby the view is taken that if while considering the revenue record it is found by the officer exercising the power under Bombay Land Revenue Code that there is breach of other enactments, then in that case the entry may be allowed to be effected on record with qualification that the transaction is primafacie in breach of provisions of the other enactments and the entry may certified subject to the final outcome of the proceedings under the enactments. In the said decision at paras 7,8 and 9 it was observed as under: