HARIJAN RUDA PALA VANVI Vs. COLLECTOR & 3

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is rightly said that the Government may try with any bonafide scheme to help the person like the petitioner. But, once they are not having willingness to take benefits of such scheme, those benefits can never be given to them. Present is the case, wherein, the petitioner was granted land bearing survey no.146 admeasuring 05 Acre -07 Gunthas, but in addition to that, he was also granted land bearing survey no.136/2 admeasuring 04 Acre -30 Gunthas. This land was allotted to the petitioner Puna Samat and Munja Goa in the joint name. But then, this land was sold in the year 1999. Now today, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner with all vehemence is contending that the petitioner does not have any other land. Once the petitioner sold the land allotted to him how could there be other land with him. It is quite clear from the record that the Collector started taking steps for land bearing no.146. This land was allotted in the year 1979. In the year 1993, when the chapter started, there were plants of custard apple aged 02 months totaling to 148 in the area of 05 Acre 07 Gunthas. What is shocking and surprising is that the person is trying stick to the land. Earlier the Collector passed an order, that was challenged before the Secretary (Appeals). The Secretary (Appeals) remanded the matter. On remand, the Collector was more careful in examining the papers and passed order dated 03.11.1993. That order is again challenged before the Secretary, Revenue Department, who confirmed the order of Collector on 23.12.1994. Both these orders are under challenge in this petition.

(2.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Kakkad made strenuous effort to convince this Court to see that the petition is allowed and those orders are quashed, but then, he could not succeed in doing so. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 09.08.2005, the Mamlatdar of the area [Vanthali Taluka] along with Talati -cum - Mantri, Santalpur Village filed a report which is running into 03 pages from page -94 to 96 and annexures are from page number 97 to 164, which includes a saledeed at page no.156 to 164. The Court must appreciate the tenacity with which learned advocate Mr. Kakkad argued the matter and insisted that despite the saledeed on record, it must not be held by this Court that the petitioner has lost all his rights to be in possession of the land in question i.e. survey no.146. 2.1 In good old days, this land i.e. survey no.136/2 admeasuring 4 Acre 30 Guntha was sold for a sum of Rs.80,000/ -. The document is of the year 1999 and there is an entry made in village form no.7/12 with regard to sale of survey no.136/2.

(3.) FOR a while even if that fact of having sold the land bearing survey no.136/2 is kept aside, the petitioner has lost his eligibility to retain the possession of the land bearing survey no.146 because he has not used this land for all these years. He was granted this land in the year 1979. When in the year 1993, an inquiry was made, it was pleaded that in the year 1983 i.e. 10 years before the date of inquiry, there was heavy flood. Therefore, all the trees [fruit -bearing] were washed away. Assuming for the sake of argument that between 1979 to 1983, he had cultivated the fruit -bearing trees and they were washed away in the year 1983, during this period of 10 years, he could rear only 148 custard apples, which were found to be 02 months old.