PARBATSANG GULABSANG GADHVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that since the petitioners were holding agricultural land as per the Mamlatdar and since the excess land was there, the proceedings were initiated under the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and vide order dated 26.2.1982, Mamlatdar found that there was no excess land since the petitioners would be entitled to two units and, therefore, proceedings were dropped. Thereafter, the State Government carried the matter in revision under Section 37 of the Act and in the said proceedings the Assistant Collector found that the petitioners would be entitled to only one unit and the land admeasuring 16 acres and 34 gunthas was declared as excess land. It appears that thereafter one Premjibhai Laljibhai moved an application to the Dy. Collector contending, inter lia, that the land admeasuring 8 acres and 12 gunthas was already purchased by him vide registered sale deed dated 27.5.1968 and, therefore, the said land be excluded. The said application was considered by the Dy. Collector and the order dated 30.6.1987 was passed by the Dy. Collector, cancelling the order of the Mamlatdar and he further directed the Mamlatdar to consider the matter for declaration of the other land from the lands, which were in possession of the petitioners. It appears that thereafter the Mamlatdar once again considered the matter and vide order dated 18.12.1985, the Mamlatdar declared the land admeasuring 16 acres and 13 gunthas of the petitioners as excess. The petitioners carried the matter in appeal being Appeal No.19/1985 and the said appeal came to be dismissed as per the order dated 11.3.1986. The petitioners further carried the matter in revision before the Tribunal being Revision No.459 of 1986 and the Tribunal decided the revision on 8.9.1989, and the operative portion reads as under:- "The revision application is partially allowed. The orders of the Mamlatdar and Dy. Collector in so far as they declare 16 acres and 36 gunthas of the land as surplus is set aside and it is declared that 8 acres and 24 gunthas of the land should be declared as surplus and the matter be sent to the Mamlatdar for declaring the surplus land after obtaining choice of the applicants."

(2.) It is not in dispute that the said order of the Tribunal is not carried by the petitioners before the higher forum. Thereafter, Mamlatdar pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal called upon the petitioners to give choice for surrendering of the land and as per the choice declared by the petitioners following land was declared as excess land as per the order dated 30.5.1990: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_9_TLGJ0_2007.htm</FRM>

(3.) It appears that the petitioners did not challenge the order of the Mamlatdar for declaration of the land as excess, but one Koli Nanu Buta preferred appeal and contended, inter alia, that out of the lands, which were declared as excess land, the land bearing Survey No.106 admeasuring 5 acres and 2 gunthas was in his possession and the Civil Suit filed by the petitioners against him for the land in question being Civil Suit No.34 of 1983 was dismissed and the appeal was pending and, therefore, the Court had believed the ownership and under these circumstances, the said land be excluded from the declaration of the land as excess land. The Dy. Collector vide order dated 23.1.1991 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar. It appears that thereafter upon application of the State Government, the matter was further considered by the Mamlatdar for modification of the earlier order for declaration of the land as excess lands, but such lands were not available since the same was the disputed lands on the aspect of possession and as the petitioners were having other lands. The Mamlatdar ultimately passed the order on 10.5.1993, whereby the other lands belonging to the petitioners being Survey Nos.111, 7/1 and 44 total admeasuring 8 acres and 24 gunthas were declared as excess land. It appears that the petitioners carried the matter in appeal and the said appeal came to be dismissed by the Dy. Collector vide order dated 20th September, 1993. The petitioners further carried the matter in revision before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the revision by confirming the order of the Mamlatdar and of the Dy. Collector and it is under these circumstances, the present petition.