PRUTHVIRAJ RAHUBHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that one Rahubha Jivubhai was holding the agricultural land of Village Parabdi in Dhandhuka Taluka. After the enactment of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?) and more particularly after amendment of the Act, the case was registered by the Mamlatdar as Ceiling Case No.15 of 1976, the matter was processed and it was declared that there is surplus land of 37 acres and 10 gunthas. The matter was carried before the higher forum mainly on the ground that the proceedings were against the dead person. Ultimately, this Court, as per the judgement dated 1.12.1993 in SCA No.5454 of 1990 remanded the matter since the legal representatives of the deceased were not heard. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar and ALT, after remand, passed a fresh order on 15.2.1995 and held that the deceased Rahubha Jivubhai was holding the surplus land admeasuring 71 acres and 35 gunthas, as per the order dated 15.2.1995. The petitioners carried the matter before the Dy. Collector in Appeal No.1 of 1995, which came to be dismissed on 23.6.1995. The petitioners also preferred revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal being Revision Application No.B.A.466/1995, which came to be dismissed on 30.7.1996 and it is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by the present petition.

(2.) I have heard Mr.H.M.Jadeja for Mr.B.J.Jadeja, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Chhaya, learned AGP for the State Authorities.

(3.) Mr.Jadeja, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners raised the first contention that the opportunity has not been given to legal heirs of the deceased Rahubha Jivubhai and in his submission, Yashvant Rahubha was one of the legal representatives of deceased Rahubha, who was required to be served notice and as no notice was given, not only the mandatory procedure was not followed, but the direction given by this Court in its judgement dated 1.12.1993 in SCA No.5454 of 1993 are not complied with and, therefore, the order deserves to be quashed on that ground.