KOLI RAMA RUGNATH Vs. MAMLATDAR AND AGRICULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order and direction quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN/B.A.542/82 dated 6.7.1983 whereby the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner and confirmed the orders passed by the authorities below.

(2.) It appears from the record of the case that the petitioner has filled in Form No.2 prescribed under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 ("the Act" for short). It also appears that the Mamlatdar and ALT after giving notice and after holding the inquiry passed the order dated 15.3.1977 by which it is held that the applicant is holding 67 acres, 4 gunthas of land in village Patal Darbari of Tharad Taluka of Banaskantha District and, therefore, the petitioner is in possession of 13 acres, 4 gunthas of land in excess of the ceiling limit, and, therefore, the Mamlatdar passed the order to vest the excess land in the State under Section 21 of the Act. Against the said order dated 15.3.1977, the petitioner preferred the appeal, being Ceiling Appeal No.17 of 1980 before the Deputy Collector, Tharad who by his judgment and order dated 18.8.1980 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 18.8.1980, the petitioner preferred the revision application, being Revision Application No.TEN.BA.542 of 1982 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 6.7.1983 dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner, and, hence, the present petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) It is contended by Mr.Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has not properly appreciated the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, and, therefore, erred in arriving at the conclusion that the communication of the operative part of the order at Annexure-A to the petition was communication as required by Section 21 of the Act and the limitation would run against the petitioner from that day. In his submission, communication of operative part only made by respondent No.1 is no communication as required by Section 21 of the Act, and, therefore, no limitation would run against the petitioner by that communication. He submitted that the petitioner's son Mr.Gemara was major on 1.4.1976, and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to separate unit as per the provisions of Section 6(3C) of the Act. He submitted that this strongest contention based on material on record is not at all considered by the Tribunal. He submitted that the Mamlatdar and ALT overlooked the material on record and recorded perverse finding and held that the petitioner is holding surplus land, and, therefore, requested to allow this petition.