SARDAR MANJITSINH VASAVASINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Assistant Collector at Baroda on 29th July 1982 is also by the Collector of Baroda (respondent No. herein) on 2nd June 1983 as affirmed in revision by the decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) on 28th January 1985 in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 284 of 1983 are under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, the Assistant Collector at Baroda set aside his own order passed on 1st January 1982 granting permission to the petitioner to purchase three parcels of land bearing survey Nos. 67/2, 68 and 69 (the disputed lands for convenience) under sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Tenancy Act for brief). By his impugned order, respondent No. 2 refused to grant permission to the petitioner for purchase of the aforesiad parcels of land.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner made an application to respondent No. 2 herein on 26th March 1981 for purchase of the disputed lands from their respective owners. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. By his reply of 14th July 1981, respondent No. 2 gave intimation to the petitioner that his application was transferred to the Assistant Collector for obtaining the necessary certificate under sec. 63 of the Tenancy Act. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. It appears that respective owners of the disputed lands applied to the competent authority at Baroda for permission to sell the lands to the petitioner in view of the relevant provisions contained in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Ceiling Act for brief). By his communications of 31st January 1981, the competent authority informed the respective landholders that such permission would not be necessary. Their copies are at Annexure-C collectively to this petition. Thereafter, by the order passed on 1st June 1982, the Assistant Collector at Baroda granted to the petitioner permission to purchase the disputed lands from their respective owners on certain terms and conditions. Its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner purchased the disputed lands from their respective owners and got executed and registered the necessary sale deeds some time on or about 9th July 1982. It appears that the Assistant Collector at Baroda later on realised that permission inter alia under Sec. 63 of the Tenancy Act could not have been granted by him but could have been granted by respondent No. 2 Therepon, by his order passed on 29th July 1982, the Assistant Collector at Baroda set aside his own order passed on 1st June 1982 at Annexure-D to this petition. A copy of the aforesaid order passed on 29th July 1982 is at Annexure-F to this petition. It appears that the petitioner thereupon approached respondent No. 2 with his representation of 26th August 1982. Its copy is at Annexure-G to this petition. It appears that he issued one reminder on 10th May 1983. Its copy is at Annexure-H to this petition. Thereafter, by his order passed on 2nd June 1983, respondent No. 2 rejected the petitioner's application made on 26th March 1981. Its copy is at Annexure-J to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in revision before the Tribunal under sec. 76 of the Tenancy Act. It came to be registered as Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 284 of 1983. By its decision rendered on 28th January 1985 in the aforesaid revisional application, the Tribunal rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure-K to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon approached 613 this court by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure-F to this petition as also the order at Annexure-J to this petition as affirmed in revision by the decision at Annexure-K to this petition.

(3.) Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Sompura for the respondents has urged that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable at least qua the order of the Assistant Collector at Annexure-F to this petition and also qua the order of respondent No. 2 at Annexure-J to this petition as affirmed in revision by the decision at Annexure-K to this petition. Thereupon, learned Advocate Shri Patel for the petitioner has orally applied for leave to convert this petition as also under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such oral request is accepted and this petition is ordered to be treated as also under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on payment of the deficit court fees, if any, within eight weeks from today.