LATIKABEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 14.05.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in the captioned petition.

(2.) THE main contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the provisions of Section 31 of the Bombay Fragmentation Act were not applicable to the facts of the present case, which has been lost sight of by the learned single Judge. The said Section provides for restriction of alienation and subdivision of consolidated holdings and also prohibits transfer of any holding allotted under the Act except with the permission of the District Collector. The learned single Judge failed to appreciate the above aspect of the case. It was further submitted that in view of the Amendment of 2012, the matter deserves reconsideration by the authority concerned.

(3.) CONSIDERING the facts of the case, we find that the learned single Judge rightly rejected the writ petition since the sale transaction had created a fragment from a block, which is prohibitory u/s.31 of the said Act. The transaction in question is of 1993 whereas, the Amendment took place in the year 2012. Therefore, such amendment would not apply to the transaction in question. In our opinion, the learned single Judge was completely justified in rejecting the petition filed by the appellantoriginal petitioner. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.