ABDULBHAI DAOODBHAI MUMAN Vs. DY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR .Sunil Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.R. Mengdey, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. None for the respondent No.3 though the name of Mr.S.V. Raju, learned counsel is shown in the Daily Board.

(2.) THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dtd.11/10/1994 passed by the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department on 11/10/1994 in Case No.SRD/CON/BNS/14 of 1993, confirming the order dtd.27/8/1993 passed by the learned Collector, Palanpur, in Case No.289 of 1993, is before this Court with the submission that initiation of the proceedings was already delayed and the petitioner had paid some good price for purchasing the property. It is submitted that in absence of a notice under sub -section (2) of section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 ("Fragmentation Act" for short), learned Dy. Collector could not take up the matter in suo -motu revision, nor could set aside the entry which was made in the year 1980, nor could he annul the sale deeds of the year 1978 and 1980.

(3.) FROM the petitioner's say, it would appear that the agricultural land being Survey No.5/2 of Juni Sendhni Tal.Vadgam, District Banaskantha, was irrigated land and was owned by one Becharbhai.