CHAKUBHAI PANCHABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 13 by this petition filed in the year 1990 By that order the Government has cancelled the exemption granted to the petitioner from Urban Land Ceiling Act. One of the conditions of the exemption was that the lands shall be used for agricultural purpose. In reply to the show-cause notice written submissions were made; but no evidence was led. On the basis of local inspection and the public record of village Form No. 7/12 it was found that the petitioners land was not used at all and no cultivation was made and therefore the exemption was cancelled. After this order several proceedings have been taken and several orders have been passed declaring the land to be surplus and vesting in the Government. Government took possession of the land and thereafter the Government gave possession to the Co-operative Society in June 1990. The delay of three years is not at all explained and during long period of three years the title has changed and new rights and equities have been created and large number of persons are involved who have invested their hard earned moneys. In these circumstances this petition deserves to be dismissed in limine on the ground of delay. Even otherwise on merits the petitioner has no case. The petitioner submits that the land was not cultivated for three years because of draught condition in that region. However this has not been substantiated by any evidence except the bare averment. If the conditions were such as is averred by the petitioner the agricultural lands of that region would have remained uncultivated and the revenue records would have shown the same in respect of all the lands; but no such evidence has been produced. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not changed the use from agricultural to any other non-agricultural purpose. The authorities granted exemption from Urban Land Ceiling Act in order to ensure the cultivation of the land. If the land is not to be cultivated and merely to be kept fallow the exemption would mean land-holding and cornering of the land for no useful purpose.

(2.) In the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondents Nos. 4 5 and 6 it is shown that the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell the suit land to one Yogi Krupa Co-op. Housing Society and obtained some consideration and the petitioner had applied for approving the said transaction and the same was rejected. Thus it does appear that the petitioner had lost all interest in cultivating the land and therefore that land had remained uncultivated.

(3.) In the circumstances this petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Notice discharged.