MARKLAND PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Obtain by proper management or otherwise an unlawful and erroneous order permitting to transfer land in favour of non-agriculturist-see that the same is not challenged by vendor of the land. The phrase proper management conveys everything that commonsense should dictate having regard to the realities of life. In this fashion can any one frustrate the objects of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act 1948 ? Or is it open to the State Government to challenge such orders in revision notwithstanding the fact that the Government is not a party in the proceedings before lower authority ? These are few of the questions involved in these petitions besides other common questions of law and facts. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases at the request of and by consent of the parties all these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The petitions are under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner No. 1 a Private Limited Company and other petitioners who are original owners of the land challenge the legality and validity of the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by which the Tribunal cancelled the permission to purchase agricultural land granted to the petitioner No. 1-Private Limited Company. The Deputy Collector under Sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 had granted the permission. The Tribunal as per its order dated 20/09/1985 cancelled the order of the Deputy Collector and remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector for being considered the same in accordance with law. Same is the position in all the matters. This order is challenged by the petitioners.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order under Sec. 63 of the Act is required to be passed by the Collector. When the Deputy Collector exercised this power under Sec. 63 he acted as a delegate of the Collector. Therefore the revision could not have been filed by the Collector. In his submission revision at the instance of the Collector would amount to challenging the legality nd validity of the order passed by the Collector himself.