BECHAR ARJAN AND COMPANY Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a prohibition of sale of agricultural land in favour of a non-agriculturist apply to a partnership firm consisting of all agriculturists as partners? Will a sale transaction in favour of a partnership firm consisting of such agriculturists as partners be hit by such prohibition against transfer of agricultural lands in favour of non-agriculturists? These questions arise in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the context of the challenge to the order passed by the Assistant Collector at Dhrangadhra (respondent No.1 herein) on 3rd September 1983 in Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.61 of 1981-82 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Collector of Surendranagar (respondent No.2 herein) on 24th April 1984 in Gharkhed Ordinance Appeal No.83 of 1984 as further affirmed in revision by and on behalf of the State Government by the order passed on 31st December 1984.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. Petitioner No.1 is a firm (the firm for convenience) and petitioner No.2 is a partner therein. The firm is duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Its members are admittedly all agriculturists. It appears to have purchased one parcel of land bearing survey No.57 (Part) admeasuring 8 acres situated at Pratapgarh (the disputed land for convenience) from one Koli Hari Lavji (the deceased for convenience) by means of one registered Sale Deed executed on 22nd August 1967. Respondent No.3 herein is his heir and legal representative. The necessary mutation entry was also effected in the concerned revenue record. It appears that the sale transaction in favour of the firm came to the notice of the concerned authority. It was found to be in contravention of Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Laws Ordinance Act, 1949 (the Ordinance for brief). Thereupon, a show cause notice came to be issued on 8th July 1983 calling upon the firm to show cause why action should not be taken for breach of Section 54 of the Ordinance qua the transaction in question. The proceeding came to be registered as Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.61 of 1981-82. It appears that the hearing was fixed on 2nd August 1983 and the notice in that regard was received on that very day by the petitioners. It therefore submitted an application to respondent No.1 and also requested for revocation of the show cause notice on certain grounds mentioned therein. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. It appears that thereafter the petitioners filed their reply to the show cause notice some time in August 1983. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. After hearing the petitioners, by his order passed on 3rd September 1983 in the aforesaid proceeding, respondent No.1 declared the sale transaction to be invalid as violative of Section 54 of the Ordinance and the possession of the disputed land was ordered to be restored to the original owner. Its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners carried the matter in appeal before respondent No.2. It came to be registered as Gharkhed Ordinance Appeal No.83 of 1984. By his order passed on 24th April 1984 in the aforesaid appeal, respondent No.2 dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure-E to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners carried the matter in revision before the State Government under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code for brief). By the order passed by and on behalf of the State Government on 31st December 1984, the revisional application of the petitioners came to be rejected. Its copy is at Annexure-F to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon approached this court by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure-D to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-E to this petition as further affirmed in revision by the State Government by the order at Annexure-F to this petition.

(3.) Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Uraizee has raised a preliminary objection against maintainability of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, learned Advocate Shri Raval for the petitioners prays for treating this petition as also under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such oral prayer is accepted and this petition is treated as also under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on payment of the deficit court fees, if any, within 15 days from today.