SHRIMANT RANJITSINH P GAEKWAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner - Rajmata Shantadevi Pratapsinhrao Gaekwad, is before this Court throwing challenge to the orders passed by the Mamlatdar, confirmed by the Deputy Collector and approved by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Ceiling matter where under after rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, 10 Acres and 25 Gunthas land was declared surplus.

(2.) Mr. Kavina, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from entry no. 99 of the register maintained by Talati, it would appear that the orders were passed in NA 44/1 on 6.1.54 in respect to the land of survey no. 429 and if the land is shown to be non-agricultural land, provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 would not be applicable. Referring to Section-2 [6] which defines "class of land" and Section 2[17] which defines "land", it is submitted that the land if is not cultivable, is not used for agricultural operations or is registered as non-agricultural land, then the provisions of Section 3[c] of the Act would immediately apply and the land would stand exempted from the operation of the Act. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner made an application to the concerned Collector for supplying certified copy of the order dated 6.1.54 rendered in NA 44/1, but the Collector showed his inability stating that the records were old and had been destroyed. His submission is that the register maintained by the Talati can be used as secondary evidence in favour of the petitioner and this Court must hold that the lands were exempt from the operation of the Act.

(3.) Shri L.R. Pujari, learned AGP for the State, combating the said arguments submitted that from the order passed by the Mamlatdar, it would clearly appear that various survey numbers were recorded as non-agricultural land and the petitioner did not file orders enabling her to exemption. His submission is that the petitioner did not show to the Court or could not even convince the authorities that after obtaining non-agricultural permission, the petitioner ever used the land for non-agricultural operations. His submission is that registration of the land as non-agricultural land would not be sufficient to attract Section 3[c] of the Act if the land is under cultivation and was used, or even if the land s is barren, but is still cultivable. His submission is that in the year 1976, when forms were to be filled, the petitioner knew well that the order granting non-agricultural permission would be required to be filed, but she did not care to obtain the said order and file the same, because, by that time, period of 30 years had not expired and the records were available with the Collectorate or Mamlatdar. His submission is that secondary evidence cannot be accepted just for the sake of submission, but it is to be proved like any other document in accordance with law.