VASUDEV RANCHHODBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certain agricultural land in Block No.177 admeasuring 5 Hectares 33 Are and 46 sq. mtrs. and Block No.178 admeasuring 1 Are and 73 sq. mtrs. was sold by a registered sale deed dated 14th March, 1985 with a further stipulation that irrigation facility would be available to the purchaser. The right in the property was sold by Ishwarbhai Vithhalbhai, both sons of Dahyabhai. The entries in relation to the said transactions were made on 27th April, 1985 and the entries came to be certified on 23rd July, 1985. The respondent No.3 herein, namely, Bhagabhai Chhibabhai filed Revision Application No.585 of 1994. The respondent No.2, Deputy Collector (Olpad Division), exercising his revisional powers held that the sale transaction was not in accordance with law and was hit by the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Fragmentation Act" for the sake of brevity). Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Revision Application before respondent No.1 (State of Gujarat). The revision came to be registered as SRD/Con./SAT-1/95; it was allowed on 25th February, 1997. It is made clear that in relation to property bearing Survey No.178, no entry was made, therefore, no order has been made by the revisional authority. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of the present Writ Application are that the land originally belonged to one Chhibabhai, who was succeeded by his three sons, Bhagabhai, Narayanbhai and Dahyabhai. After the death of Dahyabhai, the sellers - Ishwarbhai and Vithhalbhai, both sons of Dahyabhai, succeeded to the rights of the deceased Dahyabhai and thereafter, sold their rights in the property to the present petitioner, Vasudev - son of Ranchhodbhai Patel.

(3.) Shri Malik, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the provisions of the Fragmentation Act would not apply to the present set of facts because even after transfer of the rights, there had been no actual division of the property, in absence of the partition by metes and bounds no fragmentation would come into being. Placing reliance upon a judgement of the single Bench of this Court in the matter of Sarvagna Navinchandra Godiawala vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2003 1 GLH 426, it is also submitted that if an entry is made under the provisions of law, then, such sale entry cannot be set aside after undue delay. He also placed reliance upon another judgement of the single Bench of this Court in the case of Babubhai Hirabhai & Ors. vs. City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, 2000 2 GCD 1566 (Guj.)], to contend that in absence of actual division by metes and bound, there is no division which could violate Section 8 of the Act.