NAVNITBHAI CHUNIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises from the proceedings under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, Sthe Act ). The petitioners are the purchasers of the disputed lands. The petitioners challenge the order dated 3rd December, 1998 made by the State Government (Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department) in Revision Application No.36/1997.

(2.) The subject matter of dispute in the present petition is the purchase of the land bearing Block No.111/2 admeasuring 14-Gunthas and the land bearing Block No.111/5 admeasuring 13-Gunthas of village Zundal, District Gandhinagar by the petitioners.

(3.) It appears that on 20th March, 1995 the petitioners purchased the aforesaid pieces of land from its then owner one Bholidas Patel. Admittedly, each piece of land was a fragment within the meaning of the Act. On 20th May, 1996, the Prant Officer issued notice under Section 9 of the Act stating that the transfer of the disputed lands was in violation of ban against the transfer of a fragment imposed by Section 7 of the Act and calling upon the vendor Bholidas Patel and the purchasers, the present petitioners, to show-cause why the said transfer be not set-aside and why the vendor be not fined for the breach. The said notices were answered by the petitioners on 6th July, 1996. The petitioners explained that on 20th March, 1995 they had purchased five pieces of land from their owner Bholidas Patel. All the five pieces of land made one whole block of land larger than a fragment. The land purchased by the petitioners was not a fragment within the meaning of the Act. By order dated 30th June, 1996 made by the Prant Officer, the explanation given by the petitioners was not accepted. The sale of the disputed pieces of land was ordered to be set-aside and the fine of Rs.250=00 was imposed upon the vendor. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Revision Application before the State Government, which came to be rejected by impugned order dated 3rd December, 1998. Therefore, the present petition.