SUTHAR AMRUTLA PARSOTAMDAS Vs. RABARI VASTABHAI SARTANBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land in question was mutated in the name of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner on 16th July 1979. The Authority initiated proceedings under Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 in 1991. Relying on Bhanabhai Morarbhai Solanki, v. State of Gujarat, 1994(1)-35(1) G.L.R. 822, the court held that the authority had no jurisdiction or power to initiate the proceedings under Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and hence the order passed by such authority is without jurisdiction and void ab initio.

(2.) The argument that the petitioner had already availed of the remedy of appeal was rejected upon Advocate of the petitioner making a statement at that stage that the appeal in question shall be withdrawn within one week from the date of the order. The court observed that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is discretionary, and in a given case such discretion can be exercised in favour of a party despite his availing the alternative remedy even if it is not fully exhausted. Petition allowed.