LAWS(GJH)-2006-12-145

AMARSINHBHAI MALABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On December 06, 2006
AMARSINHBHAI MALABHAI PATEL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts leading to the present petition are that on 27th January, 1962, Bhudan Samiti alloted 8 Acres of land, which was part of Survey No.179 to one Rana Punja Ahir (respondent No.4); somewhere in the year 1978, the said Rana Punja sold 4 Acres each to Bhagwandas Haridas (respondent No.5) and Pancha Jiva (respondent No.6). After the said sale, certain entry was made and after some time, the entry was cancelled, but in an appeal, the Collector directed restoration of the entry. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the said 8 Acres of land under a registered sale deed from the said Bhagwandas Haridas and Pancha Jiva.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance upon a single Bench judgement of this Court in the matter of Cold Cap Tyres Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Chief Secretary, [2005(1) G.L.H. (U.J.) 1], submitted that the Deputy Collector was not entitled to exercise his powers after lapse of eight years. His further submission is that if the transfer made by Rana Punja Ahir has been accepted to be valid, then, there is no reason to hold that present would not be a valid transaction. It was also submitted that the Bhudan Act would be applicable to the transfer of the land and the provisions of the Code would not apply.

(3.) Relying upon a judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa & Ors. vs. Brundaban Sharma & Anr., [1995 Supp.(3) S.C.C. 249], Shri A.Y. Kogje, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that as the entries made in the year 1983 were absolutely illegal and the transaction in favour of the present petitioner was contrary to the provisions of law, its validity could be examined at any time. His submission is that the land was allotted to Rana Punja Ahir under the Bhudan Act, but, such allottee would become a tenure holder under the Code. It is then submitted that if action of 1978 is held to be valid, it would not be a license in favour of the tenure holder to go on repeating the illegality.