VORA MUNIRABEN GULAMBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an agriculturist and owner of land of block No. 117 (Old Survey No. 108/1) of Village Fatepur,Taluka-Bayad, has preferred this Special Civil Application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector, Bayad dated 31.7.1993 under Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, by which the land of the petitioner has been confiscated.

(2.) The Deputy Collector, Bayad issued a show cause notice upon the petitioner on 10.3.1993 exercising powers under Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") alleging inter alia that the land in question is kept uncultivated and a fallow land from 1985 to 1990 and therefore the said land is to be taken over by the State Government and therefore the petitioner was directed to remain present at Modasa. The petitioner appeared before the Deputy Collector, Modasa and filed his detailed reply denying the allegations levelled in the show cause notice. It was specifically denied that the land in question is kept uncultivated and a fallow land. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there are berry trees in the lands in question and they are earning from the same. It was also further contended on behalf of the petitioners that it is not possible to have any other crop looking to the land in question and therefore they have grown berry trees. A Panchnama was also drawn by Talati-cum-Mantri of the village in question in which it was also found that there are berry trees in the said land in question. Inspite of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Deputy Collector by his judgment and order dated 31.7.1993 has passed an order of confiscation of land in question exercising powers under Section 65 of the Act by holding that the agricultural activity is not going on in the land in question and that the land in question is kept as a fallow land and for that purpose he has also relied upon reports submitted by Incharge Mamlatdar and Circle Officer of Village Akrund and by holding that the land in question is not cultivated for more than 3 years continuously and therefore passed an order of taking over the land/confiscation of land exercising the powers under Section 65 of the said Act.

(3.) That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dated 31.7.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector, Modasa under Section 65 of the Act in taking over of the land in question and passing the order of confiscation, the present Special Civil Application is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Shri KB Pujara, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the findings given by the Deputy Collector in his order dated 31.7.1993 are contrary to the evidence on record and that there is crop of berry trees in the land in question and in that view of the matter and looking to the fertility of the land in question it is not possible to grow any other crop in the land in question. He has submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 31.7.1993 the Deputy Collector has relied upon the Inquiry Report submitted by the Incharge Mamlatdar and Circle Officer, a copy of which has never been given to the petitioner to controvert the same and that the said inquiry is initiated and conducted by the Deputy Collector behind the back of the petitioner. Shri Pujara has also further submitted that under Sec. 65 of the Act there is no power of confiscation and the maximum power that may be exercised is power to take management and that too for a period not more than 10 years. Under the circumstances, he has submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 31.7.1993 in passing the order of confiscation of the land in question for all times to come is erroneous and against the provisions of Section 65 of the Act and requested to quash and set aside the same. Shri Pujara has relied upon the Judgment of this Court rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 448 of 1982 and also Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanlal Gulabchand Shah Vs. The State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1969 S.C. Page 168, in support of his aforesaid contention.