RATILAL JAGANBHAI KAMLI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgement shall dispose of Special Civil Application Nos.7919 of 1992, 7920 of 1992 and 7921 of 1992.

(2.) THE land bearing Survey No.9 of Village -Khatalvada, Taluka: Umergaon, District: Valsad, was owned by Ukadbhai Jivanbhai, Maganbhai Jivanbhai, Ravji Budhiya and Lasuben Kalidas. After the death of Ravji Budhia, his son Jagan Ravji sold 7 Gunthas of land for a sum of Rs.1,001/ - by an unregistered Sale Deed to the present petitioners. Ukad Jivanbhai made an application to respondent No.2 - Mamlatdar to make an inquiry into the matter. The matter came to the Deputy Collector, who in Case No. LND/NT/3/86, held that there were violations of the conditions attached to the new tenure. He, accordingly, directed that the present petitioners be evicted and the land be forfeited in favour of the Government. The said order was not challenged by the present petitioners, but, it came to be challenged by Ukad Jivanbhai, Maganbhai Jivanbhai, by way of an appeal before the Collector, Valsad. The said appeal, being Appeal No.9 of 1988, was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The said order of the Collector came to be challenged in the revision at the instance of Ukad Jivanbhai and Maganbhai Jivanbhai. The revision was heard by the Additional Secretary (Revenue), who partly allowed the revision, confirmed the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and the Collector, but, however, made observations that procedure under Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code be followed. Thereafter, the Circle Inspector -Umergaon issued letters to the petitioners to remain in attendance on 29th October, 1991 and thereafter, on 10th February, 1992. The matter was heard by the Mamlatdar, who directed that the petitioners be evicted from the premises, the case was numbered as LND/Vashi/574/92. The petitioners now aggrieved by the order dated 5th November, 1992 passed by the Mamlatdar, directing eviction of the petitioners, are before this Court.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners had made various submissions on the merits of the matter.