KANKUBEN J BHARWAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are, that the petitioner purchased the land admeasuring 4 Acre 23 Gunthas bearing Survey No. 584/2 at village Akrund, Taluka Bayad, Dist. Sabarkantha vide Registered Sale Deed dated 5/7/1985, which was an agricultural land and the petitioner had purchased the land from one Vanand Sakrabhai Punjabhai. The entry was also mutated in the revenue record based on the Sale Deed. However, the proceedings came to be initiated under Section 84(C) under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Mamlatdar & ALT, on the ground that it is a purchase of the land by non- agriculturist and the transaction is between the agriculturist and non-agriculturist. The proceedings were initially dropped as per order dated 6/7/1987 but thereafter in appeal, it was remanded. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar & ALT found that the father of the petitioner though agriculturist, was surviving and therefore, the petitioner had no right to have the separate land and therefore, cannot be said as an agriculturist, since she is not independently holding the land and the petitioner had married to Jivabhai Ladhabhai, who is not having any agricultural land. Ultimately, the Mamlatdar & ALT passed the order on 18/3/1988, whereby the petitioner was declared as non- agriculturist on account of the marriage with non-agriculturist and since the petitioner declared that she was not agreeable for restoration, the land was ordered to be forfeited to the State Government. It appears that the matter was carried by the petitioner before the Deputy Collector in appeal, who dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by the Mamlatdar as per his order dated 3/10/1988. The matter was further carried in revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and one of the Judgment delivered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1654 of 1979 dated 17/6/1986 was cited before the Tribunal for contending that if the woman before the marriage was an agriculturist, she does not cease to be an agriculturist after marriage and therefore, it was contended before the Tribunal that the petitioner can be said as an agriculturist and the lower authorities, i.e. Mamlatdar and ALT as well as Deputy Collector have committed error. The Tribunal distinguished the Judgment and found that as the father of the petitioner is alive and there is no question of share of applicant at present, she cannot be treated as an agriculturist and ultimately, the revision was dismissed. It may be stated that thereafter, the review application was also preferred before the Tribunal, which also came, to dismissed on 7/12/1990 and it is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by preferring the present petition.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Chauhan for Mr. Mukund Desai for the petitioner and Mr. Mengdey, learned AGP for the respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 though served, has chosen not to appear.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the contention that the petitioner being the daughter of an agriculturist, having share in the property of her father, was entitled to be treated as an agriculturist, in view of the decision of this Court in case of BABIBEN RIKHAVCHAND DOSHI V/S. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, THARAD & ORS. REPORTED AT 1986 GLH 845 and copy of the said decision was also produced and the decision was cited before the Tribunal. Inspite of the same, the Tribunal has dismissed the revision.