THAKORBHAI DAHYABHAI NAIK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . R.N. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Hukum Singh, learned AGP for the respondents. Heard.

(2.) BY this writ application, the present petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 30.8.93 passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 11/93 by the learned Deputy Collector and the order dated 10.12.93 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. 273/93.

(3.) THE short facts leading to the present writ application are that the petitioners had submitted form no. 3 as required under the provisions of the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act with regard to holding of the agricultural land at village Rana, Taluka -Mahuva, District -Valsad. The Mamlatdar, after hearing the parties in Ceiling Case No. 130/76 vide his order dated 25.4.76, held that the petitioners were possessed of 4 acres and 9 gunthas in excess of the ceiling limit. The said order came to be challenged before the Deputy Collector, who vide his order dated 5.1.81 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar for deciding the matter afresh with a clear order that question of conversion and classification of the land should be taken into consideration. During pendency of the said ceiling matter after its remand, the government issued a circular that in accordance with Section 10[2] of the Act, land belonging to the spouse or children of the holder within the same village or Taluka should be clubbed into the original holding. It was found that the petitioner's wife had some share in the land and was recorded as joint owner with her father Gulabbhai. The Mamlatdar held that the petitioner's wife had 50% share in the said land which would come down to 7 acres and 34 gunthas and the said land will have to be clubbed with the petitioner's holdings. The Mamlatdar, again decided the matter and held that the petitioner would be entitled to five units; one for the petitioner, three for the major sons and one for the mother and as the entitlement would be 180 acres, the total holding even after clubbing the share of the wife would be 163 acres, the petitioners could not be held to be in possession of the excess land. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 3.6.92, the Deputy Mamlatdar, Mahuva, preferred Ceiling Appeal No. 11/93 on 16th July, 1993. The appeal was filed after a long delay. A question was raised before the appellate forum, but without even appreciating that the appeal was hopelessly barred by time, the appellate court simply held that there was nothing on record to show that the order passed by the Mamlatdar was brought to the notice of the Deputy Mamlatdar within reasonable time and proceeded with the final judgment. It ultimately held that as the wife's share was included in the husband's holding, the property could not be taken to be ancestral property and under the circumstances, mother of the petitioner would not be entitled to one unit. It accordingly, held so and after holding so, remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar for redeciding the matter in relation to the conversion and the classification. Being aggrieved by the appellate order, the petitioners took up the matter before the Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal, however, observed that the order passed by the appellate authority was absolutely justified and that the total holding lost its character of the joint Hindu Family property or ancestral property.