PANNABEN RAMESHCHANDRA SHETHJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal at Savli (the First Authority for convenience) on 30th April, 1992 in Ceiling Case No. 115 of 1978 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Deputy Collector at Vadodara (the Appellate Authority for convenience) on 23rd November, 1992 in Ceiling Appeal No. 4 of 1992 as further affirmed in revision by the decision rendened by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) on 28th July, 1993 in Revision Application No. TEN B. A. 61 of 1993 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, the Authority declared the holding of the petitioner to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 12 acres 07 gunthas for the purposes of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (the Act for brief).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The husband (the deceased for convenience) of the petitioner was the owner of several parcels of land in village Sherpura Taluka Savli District Vadodara. His brother, named, Krishnavadan, was also a joint-holder of the lands in question. The deceased breathed his last on 18th July, 1971. It appears that partition of the family property was thereupon effected thereafter some time in 1971. Under the partition, some lands went to the share of the elder brother of the deceased, named, Krishnavadan, and one parcel of land bearing survey No. 177 admeasuring 7 acres 27 gunthas fell to the share of one daughter, named, Bhavnaben, of the petitioner herein. The necessary mutation Entry No. 716 was effected in the revenue records some time on 23rd November, 1971. The family of the deceased no longer remained an Undivided Hindu Family upon such partition. It appears that thereafter a further distribution of lands was made and a new partition was made and it was effected in the revenue records by means of Entry No. 759 on 20th January, 1974. It appears that, with respect to the new partition, an application under Sec. 8(2) of the Act was made but it was rejected by the concerned authority and it was affirmed in revision by the Tribunal as transpiring from the impugned decision of the Tribunal in this case. It appears that the joint-holding of the petitioner with his son, named, Pankajkumar, and her daughter, named, Bhavnaben, was in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed for that area under the Act. Thereupon, the First Authority conducted an inquiry. The case came to be registered as Ceiling Case No. 115 of 1978. After hearing the petitioner, by his order passed on 30th April, 1992 in the aforesaid proceeding, the First Authority came to the conclusion that the holding of the petitioner as on 1st April, 1976 was to the tune of 84 acres 07 gunthas and the petitioner was entitled to two units, one for herself and one for her major son, and was as such entitled to retain 72 acres of land and thereupon the land to the tune of 12 acres 07 gunthas were declared surplus in her hands. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority under Sec. 35 of the Act. It came to be registered as Ceiling Appeal No. 4 of 1992. By his order passed on 23rd November, 1992 in the aforesaid appeal, the Appellate Authority dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner thereupon unsuccessfully invoked the revisional jurisdiction of Tribunal by means of her revisional application. It came to be registered as Revision Application No. TEN B. A. 61 of 1993. By its decision rendered on 28th July, 1993 in the aforesaid revisional application, the Tribunal rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure-A to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-B to this petition as further affirmed in revision by the decision at Annexure-C to this petition.

(3.) It clearly transpires from the impugned orders and the decision that the partition of the lands left behind by the deceased and in the hands of the petitioner was effected some time in 1971 and it was reflected in mutation Entry No. 716 made on 23th November, 1971. It appears that it was in the nature of division of shares in accordance with the relevant provisions contained in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The share given to Bhavnaben, daughter of the petitioner, was 7 acres 27 gunthas. It appears that the division was made in accordance with the notional partition under Sec. 6 thereof and division of shares in accordance with Sec. 8 thereof. It may be mentioned that this partition was not actually by volition of the parties but it was effected on account of the death of the deceased husband of the present petitioner. In that view of the matter, Sec. 8 of the Act would not be applicable in the instant case so far as the partition of the properties left behind by the deceased in the hands of the petitioner in 1971 was concerned.