FRIENDS LAND DEVELOPMENT CO Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner, which is a partnership firm purchased the property bearing Survey No. 84/2 admeasuring 4 Acre and 23 Gunthas at village Khanderi-Tal.Padadhari from Ahir Naranbhai Laxmanbhai, who was an agriculturist. It appears that the transaction had taken place by Registered Sale Deed No. 4000 dated 19.05.1980. Based on the said transaction, entry No. 277 was mutated on 06.07.1981 in the revenue record. It appears that on 30th March, 1991, a show-cause notice came to be issued under Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance, 1949(hereinafter referred to as 'Ordinance') for cancellation of the entry on the ground that the land is transferred to a partnership firm, which is non-agriculturist. The Assistant Collector, who issued the notice ultimately on 24.07.1991 passed the order cancelling the entry on the ground that the transaction is illegal. It appears that the matter was carried in revision before the District Collector and the District Collector as per the decision dated 13.05.1993, dismissed the revision. The District Collector further passed the order of forfeiture of the land to the Government. The matter was carried before the Revenue Tribunal in Revision being No. TNBR 40/93 and the said revision also came to be dismissed on 12th September, 1994. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court.

(2.) Heard Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mengdey, learned AGP for the State. Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has mainly raised three contentions; first one is on the question of delay, second is is that the partnership firm was an agriculturist and the third is that out of 9 partners of the firm, 4 partners were agriculturist on the date of the transaction and the prayer was made before the lower authority to give the option for relinquishment of the rights by the other five persons who were non-agriculturist, so that the land may remain with the firm of the agriculturist only. He submitted that such aspect is not properly considered by the Tribunal.

(3.) There is no dispute on the point that the power for cancellation of the entry is exercise after about 10 years. There is also no dispute on the point that the partnership firm which has purchased the property is not an agriculturist. The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the partnership firm had purchased another agricultural land bearing Survey No. 440 for which, permission was granted by the District Collector. However, the perusal of the order of the District Collector shows that the permission came to be granted only on 20.08.1980, whereas the entry in question had taken place on 19.05.1980 and therefore the said contention is rightly negatived by the lower authorities.