KISHORBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI E.E. Saiyed, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri R.C. Kodekar, learned AGP for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 8.9.95 passed in Case No. Tenancy Revision/4/94 by the learned Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat, directing that possession of the land of survey no. 255 be resumed by the State for its management for a period of ten years, filed an appeal before the Collector, but the Collector refused to receive the same directing inter alia that against such an order, Collector had neither revisional nor appellate jurisdiction, petitioners are now before this Court. Shri Saiyed, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioners, no inquiry was made and the authorities were unjustified in holding that there was breach of provisions of Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. His further submission is that even if there was some breach on the part of the petitioners, then too, maximum penalty of ten years could not be imposed and the State could not resume possession for managing the land.

(3.) SHRI R.C. Kodekar, learned AGP for the State, on the other hand, has contested the petition by submitting that on proper recommendation by the Mamlatdar to the Deputy Collector, a case was registered, notice to show cause was issued, but the petitioners did not file heir reply nor did they lead any evidence. He submits that present is a case where authority has recorded a finding of fact that the land remained uncultivated and fallow for a period of almost about 20 years. In relation to resumption of the land for ten years, he submits that if the law permits to take land for ten years, then, the authorities were entitled to pass such order.