PADMABEN CHANDULAL Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR CHORYASI PRANT SURAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioners, in all five, purchased the land of Survey No. 1/Paiki admeasuring 12 gunthas of Umarwada village in Choryasi Taluka, Dist. Surat from the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under five separate sale deeds each for 300 sq. yds. of the land for a consideration of Rs. 6,000.00. These sale deeds were registered on 14th April, 1969. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 purchased the land in question from Surat Parsi Panchayat Trust by registered sale deed of 14th April, 1969 for a consideration of Rs. 27,000.00. In para No. 1 of the Special Civil Application, the date of sale deeds of the land has been given to be 14th April, 1979, but both the Counsels for the parties are in agreement that this date is 14th April, 1969. These are the errors which are being made normally in the pleadings in this Court. Under the sale deed dated 14th April, 1969 executed by the trust in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, the area of the land sold was stated to be 15,000 sq. yds. and out of which 1,500 sq. yds. has been sold to the petitioners. This Court during the course of arguments in this case desired from the Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to bring on the record, the original sale deed executed by the trust in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, but this document has not been filed on the record. The petitioners filed an affidavit dated 10th August, 1996 wherein it has been stated that the land admeasuring 15,000 sq. yds. was purchased by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 from Surat Parsi Panchayat Trust. The petitioners have further stated in the affidavit aforesaid that the land purchased by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was covered by the Town Planning Scheme and they sold other plots from the said land to other persons also. The other purchasers of the land used the same for non-agricultural, residential purposes. It is not in dispute that the land in question which is a part of the land purchased by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was agricultural land. The trust got a certificate under S.88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1948) from the competent authority. Under that certificate, the trust was exempted of the provisions of the Act, 1948 as provided under the aforesaid section. By virtue of the said certificate granted to the trust, the provisions of S.63 of the Act, 1948 were not applicable to the sale of the land in question by the trust to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Otherwise the transfer of the agricultural land to non-agriculturist is barred without prior permission of the Collector or the officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf. The petitioners have come up with a case that the land in question was included in Town Planning Scheme existing in the year 1969 made by the Surat Municipality and now the land is also covered by the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1976). The Town Planning Scheme of 1965 made under the Bombay Town Planning Act is deemed to have been made under the Act, 1976 by virtue of sub-S.(2) of S.124 of the said Act. It has further been stated that by virtue of the provisions as contained in S.121 of the Act, 1976, the land in question is exempted from the provisions of the Act, 1948.

(2.) . The Mamlatdar, Choryasi, initiated a suo motu proceeding under S.84C of the Act, 1948 against the petitioners on the ground that the sales of the land in dispute were made in contravention of S.63 of the Act, 1948 by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in their favour and therefore, the same are invalid. The inquiry was made in the case by the Mamlatdar and thereafter it has been held under its order dated 24th November, 1977 that the land in question is covered under the provisions of the Act, 1948, and as such, the sales made in favour of the petitioners by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 without the permission of the Collector under S.63 of the Act, 1948 are invalid and void in law. Further order has been made for forfeiture of the land to the Government.

(3.) . The petitioners, aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the Mamlatdar, preferred an appeal before the Assistant Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat. The appellate authority under its order dated 10th September, 1978 held that the land is an agricultural land and is subject to the provisions of S.63 of the Act, 1948. It has further been held that so far as the sale of the land in question by the trust to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is concerned, the same was valid, as the Trust was granted certificate under S.88B of the Act, 1948, but the sales made to the petitioners by those respondents are hit by the provisions of S.63 of the Act, 1948. However, the matter was remanded back to the Mamlatdar for considering whether the second sales were valid or not and if invalid, the opportunity should be given to the parties to restore the position under the provisions of S.84C(2) of the Act, 1948.