MANCHANDBHAI MOHANLAL PANCHAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT SERVED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Mengdey, learned AGP waives notice of rule for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard. The only question which arise for consideration of this Court is whether the order passed by the authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for assumption of the land under Section 65 of the Act would survive after expiry of the period of 10 years from the date of the order or not?

(2.) The short facts to appreciate the aforesaid question are as under: The land forming a part of land bearing Survey No. 172 admeasuring 5 acres and 5 gunthas situated at Chitrasani village was purchased by the petitioner from one Jethabhai Becharbhai Patel by Registered Sale Deed dated 23.03.1988. As the land remained uncultivated for a period of two consecutive years, it appears that the proceedings were initiated under Section 65 of the Act by the Deputy Collector and ultimately, on 23.05.1988, the order was passed for assumption of the land by the State Government. It appears that in the said order, it has been mentioned by the Deputy Collector that the land is assumed by the Government without any compensation under Section 65 of the Act. However, in the order, it was not provided for any stipulated period for assumption of the land by the Government. It is the case of the petitioner that the period of 10 years has expired in the year 1998 and thereafter, the order would not operate. It may also be recorded that the matter was carried before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal against the order passed under Section 65 of the Act and as per the order dated 11.04.1994, the Tribunal observed that it is no jurisdiction to hear the present revision and the revision was dismissed.

(3.) In the year 2005, i.e. on 10.08.2005, an application was submitted by the petitioner that now the period of 10 years is over and therefore, the land should be shown in the revenue record in the name of the petitioner. It appears that a letter dated 13.01.2006 was addressed by the Deputy Collector to the petitioner wherein, it was communicated that when the order dated 23.08.1988 was passed, no time limit was provided in the order and therefore, the land cannot be given to the petitioner and if in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appropriate remedy may be resorted to. It appears that thereafter on 24.01.2006, the petitioner once again reiterated the aspects of expiry of the period of 10 years and requested to show the name of the petitioner in the revenue record as in possession of the land. However, the said requested was also declined by the Deputy Collector as per the letter dated 02.05.2006 and it is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by preferring the present petition. Heard Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mengdey, learned AGP for the State Authorities.