GANDABHAI KUVARBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that deceased Gandabhai Kuvarbhai was holding the agricultural land at Village Bhatharia. The form was filed by him under Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). There were earlier litigations, and ultimately, the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar for reconsideration on the aspects as to whether the other sons who are staying separately would be entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Sec. 6(3B) of the Act or not. The Mamlatdar and A.L.T. once again considered the matter after remand and vide order dated 3rd October, 1981, Mamlatdar declared that it is not proved that any son was major, who was in the family of Gandabhai Kuvarbhai and other two sons were staying separately, and therefore, it was declared that the applicants would be entitled to hold 54 acres of land and the lands bearing Survey Nos. 106 and 146, admeasuring 19 acres and 5 gunthas were declared as surplus land. It appears that the deceased Gandabhai Kuvarbhai carried the matter in appeal before the Dy. Collector being No. 2 of 1985-1986 and the said appeal ultimately came to be dismissed as per the order dated 18-8-1993, wherein the Dy. Collector found that two major sons are staying separately and as per the declaration filed by the holder of the land, they cannot be treated as the part of the family, and therefore, not entitled to the benefits of Sec. 6(3B) of the Act. The deceased Gandabhai Kuvarbhai further carried the matter before the Tribunal in revision being No. 869 of 1993. The Tribunal found that even if the total strength of the members of the family is considered, and even if it is considered that the majority of the said son Jugabhai Gandabhai was not proved, the holder would be entitled to get more land of 1/5th unit and the Tribunal further observed that if any land is purchased after 1-4-1976, the same cannot be considered, and therefore, the Tribunal allowed the revision by setting aside the orders of both the authorities and directed the Mamlatdar to pass a fresh order as per the observations made in the judgment. It is under these circumstances the present petition.

(2.) I have heard Mr. H. M. Jadeja for Mr. B. J. Jadeja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chhaya, learned A.G.P. for the State authorities.

(3.) Mr. Jadeja, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended inter alia that even if it is considered that Jugabhai Gandabhai was not major son on 1-4-1976, two other sons of the petitioner namely : Sukhjibhai Gandabhai and Gidhabhai Gandabhai were major, and therefore, it was required for the Tribunal to include them in the family or separate units for both the sons were required to be given. He submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the said aspect while exercising the revisional power, and therefore, this Court may consider the matter.