ISHWARBHAI L PATEL Vs. GOVT OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR .J.D.Ajmera, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Hukum Singh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State and Mrs.Sangeeta Pahwa, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

(2.) BY this writ application, the petitioner, purchaser of the property from the respondent No.3, seeks to challenge correctness, validity and propriety of the order dtd.12/4/1993 passed by the Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra and order dtd.30/12/1993 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, whereunder, the authorities have held that in view of breach of Sec.8 of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, the transaction in dispute was to be annulled and the property was to be restored in favour of the respondent No.3.

(3.) SHORT facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the respondent No.3 Mohanbhai Lakhmanbhai Patel got a sale deed executed in his favour on 17/6/1974 pertaining to 3 Acres and 1/2 Guntha of Survey No.554 from one Dalpatbhai Bhaudarsinh. Thereafter, on 8/6/1976, a rectification document was executed to show that in fact, the intention of the parties was to sell Survey No.553/1, admeasuring 3 Acres and 8 Gunthas. It also appears that on 29/1/1977, the said Mohanbhai - respondent No.3 further purchased 2 Acres and 26 Gunthas from the erstwhile owner Zaverbhai Kalubhai and now, in view of the said two sale deeds, he became owner of 5 Acres and 34 Gunthas land of Survey No.553/1. On 25/3/1976, the said Mohanbhai - respondent No.3 sold his entire holding of 5 Acres and 34 Gunthas of Survey No.553/1 to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.14,000=00. Thereafter, certain revenue entries etc. were made and according to the petitioner, he spent a fortune to develop the land, make the land fertile and for sinking a Tube -well and Submersible Pump and Pipeline. It appears that on 1/1/1981, Zaverbhai Kalubhai erstwhile owner of Survey No.553/1, again made a rectification document in favour of the respondent No.3 that due to some mistake, the area sold to the respondent No.3, was shown as 2 Acres and 26 Gunthas, while, in fact, the sale was of 3 Acres and 2 Gunthas.