ALLJIBHAI JIVRAJBHAI Vs. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (APPEALS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The dispute centres round two parcels of land from survey No. 18 admeasuring 4 acres 16 gunthas and 2 acres 1 guntha situated at village Juna Vaghania in district Amreli (the disputed lands for convenience). It appears from the record that one Kana Magha was granted two parcels of land bearing Survey No. 1 admeasuring 2 acres 3 gunthas and Survey No. 18 admeasuring 18 acres 13 gunthas situated at Juna Vaghania as unalienable lands by some order passed by the Collector of Amreli on 15th November 1966 on payment of the occupancy price in the sum of Rs. 1604.88 ps. It appears that, after the demise of the original grantee, his son, named, Jivraj Kana, transferred Survey No. 1 in favour of one Lakhman Shambu by one sale deed executed on 18th April 1980 for Rs. 7000/-and transferred the disputed lands in all admeasuring 6 acres 17 gunthas in favour of the present petitioner by the respective sale deeds executed on 4th January 1977 and 3rd January 1978 for Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 6000/- respectively. It appears that mutation of the disputed lands in the name of the transferee in the original records was sought. The Mamlatdar of Vadia did not certify the mutation entries on the ground that the lands in question were unalienable. He therefore brought the sale transaction to the notice of respondent No. 3 to take action for breach of conditions on which the lands were granted to the original grantee. Thereupon, a show-cause notice came to be issued on 17th August 1983 to both the transferee calling upon them to show-cause why the sale transaction should not be declared invalid and why the lands should not be forfeited to the State Government. The proceeding came to be registered as Breach of Condition Case No. 3 of 1983. The present petitioner filed his reply to the show-cause notice on 5th September 1983 and indicated therein that he was inclined to return the land to the vendor if he was paid back Rs. 16,000/- by the vendor. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. It appears that, later on, the vendor also filed his reply on 13th September 1983 inter alia indicating therein that he was prepared to take back possession of the lands from the vendees on return of the consideration amount to both of them. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. After hearing the parties, by his order passed on 24th April 1984 in Breach of Condition Case No. 3 of 1983, respondent No. 3 ordered restoration of possession of the lands in question to the original vendor. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. It appears to have aggrieved the present petitioner. He therefore carried the matter in appeal before respondent No. 2 under Section 203 of the Code. A copy of the memo of appeal is at Annexure-D to this petition. It appears to have been registered as Appeal No. 17 of 1984. It appears that written arguments were presented on behalf of the present petitioner at the time of hearing of the appeal on 17th September 1984. A copy thereof is at Annexure-D-1 to this petition. By his order passed on 1st October 1984 in the aforesaid appeal, respondent No. 2 not only affirmed the order at Annexure-C to this petition but also ordered forfeiture of the lands to the State Government Its copy is at Annexure-E to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners thereupon approached the State Government in revision under Section 211 of the Code. A copy of the memo of revision is at Annexure-F to this petition. It appears to have been heard by respondent No. 1. By his order passed on 19th April 1985 in the aforesaid revisional application, respondent No. 1 rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure G to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the orders at Annexures C, E and G to this petition.

(3.) xxx xxx xxx.