LAWS(GJH)-2007-4-92

VITTHALBHAI HIRABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On April 18, 2007
Vitthalbhai Hirabhai Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.A.J. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Nisha Parikh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 State and Mr.Mehul S. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 6. None for the respondent Nos.2 and 7 to 11.

(2.) THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dtd.30/9/1999 passed by the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar in Fragmentation Case No.94 of 1990, declaring transaction dtd.14/7/1992 to be void being in violation of sections 7 and 8 of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 ("Fragmentation Act" for short) and order dtd.21/9/1999 passed by the Dy.Secretary on 23/7/1999 in SRD/CON/Gandhinagar/6/97 confirming order passed by the Prant Officer, is before this Court submitting inter -alia that the notice dtd.11/7/19996issued by the Prant Officer was patently illegal and that authorities have not taken into consideration the effect of the consolidation proceedings.

(3.) SHORT facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the petitioner purchased land in dispute under sale deed dtd.14/7/1992 without prior permission of the authority. Mutation Entry No.2128 was effected in the records of right on 20/7/1992 and was certified on 21/4/1993. After receiving information about creation of fragments and illegal transaction, the Prant Officer issued notice dtd.11/7/1996 under sec.9 of the Fragmentation Act alleging inter -alia that provisions of Secs.7 and 8 of the Act were violated by the petitioner purchaser and erstwhile owner / vendor of the property. The petitioner submitted his reply on 23/7/1996. It is worth noting that question of consolidation, finalisation of the consolidation scheme, consolidation of land, allotment of a particular consolidated land or a block in favour of erstwhile owner, were not raised in reply to the notice to show cause. It was only submitted that the provisions of sec.7(1) of the Fragmentation Act would not apply if a fragment is sought to be transferred to the contiguous owner of the agricultural land or when the land is a complete block.