KIRTIBHAI CHIMANLAL PAREKH Vs. MAMLATDAR VAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioners were holding various agricultural lands and as per the petitioners, the exemption was already available prior to April, 1976 since the land was held by the petitioners as the Charitable Trust. It appears that on 1.4.1976 by Act 2 of 1974, Section 3(ddd) was added to Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which, inter alia, provided for application for exemption in the cases, where the exemption was already available immediately before the specified date. The aforesaid Amending Act came into force on 1.4.1976 and the petitioner Trust applied for exemption on 28.6.1976. The application was considered by the Dy. Collector and vide order dated 31.12.1981 the application was rejected on the ground that a separate Trust within a period of 90 days is not registered by the petitioner Trust as per the Scheme of Section 3(ddd) of the Act. The petitioner preferred appeal before the State Government, which ultimately as per the order dated 24.9.1989 came to be dismissed. Since the exemption was not available, the matter was further considered by the Mamlatdar in Ceiling Case No.1/1993 and the land admeasuring 186 acres and 36 gunthas was declared as surplus land. The petitioner preferred appeal being Appeal No.3/1993, which came to be dismissed on 30.11.1993. The petitioner carried the matter in revision being No.23/1994 and the said revision also came to be dismissed on 30.11.1993. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by preferring the present petition.

(2.) I have heard Ms.Sushma S. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Soni, learned AGP for the State Authorities.

(3.) MS .Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioners, raised the contention that Amending Act of 1976 is having perspective operation and not retrospective operation and, therefore, she submitted that the exemption, which was already granted, would operate and, therefore, exemption would not be required. In support of her submission, she relied upon the decision of this Court in case of "Shri Ranpur Khoda Dhor Panjarapole v. State of Gujarat and Ors.", reported 1995(1) GLR, 597 and she submitted that the application was not at all required to be made and in any case, the application was already made within a period of 90 days and, therefore, the decision of the authority of rejecting the application is illegal. She also submitted that the land is a waste land and there is no cultivation over the land and the grass is grown in normal course and as no cultivation is there, the land cannot be treated as agricultural land. She, therefore, submitted that the order passed by all the authorities declaring the land as the surplus land is illegal.