MANIBHAI JETHABHAI VAGHELA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the order passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha, on 6-10-1995 whereby he himself quashed his earlier order dated 6-9-1990.

(2.) The petitioner has been the owner and occupier of the agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 94 and 95 of village Balvantpura, Taluka Himatnagar, Dist. Sabarkantha which are hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed properties'. The challenging validity of order passed by Collector. petitioner purchased the disputed properties from one Mansinh Amarsinh Chauhan. The disputed lands were of restricted tenure lands which could not have been transferred except as provided under Sec. 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act) and Rule 25C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956 (Rules). The erstwhile owner Mansinh Amarsinh Chauhan wanted to sell the lands in dispute bona fide for non-agricultural purpose as he had incurred heavy debts. He, therefore, made application to the Collector, Sabarkantha for granting him permission under Sec. 43 of the Tenancy Act and also under Rule 25C of the Rules.

(3.) The Collector after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant documents granted permission to the erstwhile owner of the lands in dispute who had paid an amount of Rs. 75,422.20 ps. in the Government Treasury within the stipulated time. The Collector passed order on 15-9-1990 giving permission to transfer the agricultural lands for non-agricultural purpose. By virtue of the said permission, the petitioner purchased the lands in dispute from the previous owner. The respondent No. 2, Collector, Sabarkantha passed order taking the matter in suo motu review and without hearing the petitioner or his predecessorin- title passed the impugned order. The respondent No. 2, Collector took the view that there was no appropriate case under Rule 25-C(1)(f) of the Rules and in view of the instructions from the Revenue Commissioner, the impugned order came to be passed. In other words, the Collector has observed in the impugned order that the permission to sell the agricultural property bona fide for non-agricultural purpose was not in accordance with the Rules. By passing the impugned order, the original position was ordered to be restored.