ABHESINH MOHANSINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned Advocate appearing for both the sides, the main Special Civil Application itself is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner sold the land vide register sale- deed in favour of respondents No.2 to 3 on 16/5/1983. On 9/12/1983 the mutation entry No.2366 was recorded in the revenue record and the same was certified on 2/6/1984. The Assistant Collector, Olpad thereafter on 9/11/1990 after period of about 7 years issued a show-cause notice taking the said entry in revision on the alleged ground that the transfer was in violation of the provisions of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') stating that the purchaser was not the agriculturist. It appears that on 28/2/1991, the Assistant Collector passed the order to cancel the entry No.2366 in R.T.S. proceedings and he also consequently passed the order of declaring the transaction. The matter was carried in appeal by the respondents No.2 to 4 before the Collector against the order of the Assistant Collector cancelling the entry. However, ultimately on 19/9/1991, the Collector dismissed the appeal.

(3.) It appears that thereafter the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. initiated the proceedings under Section 84 C of the Act, and ultimately, on 24/2/1992 the order passed by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. permitting the restoration of the land, failing which it was ordered that the land shall be forfeited to the State Government. It appears that the respondents No.2 to 4 also preferred writ petitions before this Court being Special Civil Application No.2367 of 1992 after the order passed by the Mamlatdar. However, as the alternative remedy was available, this Court did not entertain the petition vide order dated 3/4/1992. The respondents No.2 to 4 thereafter preferred the appeal against the order of the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. under Section 84 C of the Act before the Assistant Collector and on 19/5/1992, the Assistant Collector dismissed the appeal. The matter was thereafter carried before the Revenue Tribunal in revision and Revenue Tribunal ultimately passed the judgment and order dated 4/5/1997 whereby the revision is allowed and the order of the Mamlatdar as well as the Assistant Collector in appeal are quashed and set aside and it is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by preferring the present petition.