DALWADI RAVJI BOGHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Challenge is made by the petitioner in this Special Civil Application to the orders annexure 'A' and 'B' of the respondents No. 2 and 1 under which the sale of the part of land of survey No. 185, made by the owner thereof in favour of the petitioner, was held to be invalid and contrary . to the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.

(2.) The facts in brief of the case are that the respondent No. 3 was the owner and in possession of the land bearing survey No. 185, admeasuring 1 acre and 34 gunthas situated at village Gokharwada near Chuda of Limbdi Taluka which has a facility of water from the well located in survey No. 181/2. The petitioner and his brother Ramji jointly purchased 1 acre and 2 gunthas of the land from survey No. 185 from the respondent by the registered sale deed on 22nd March, 1971. Thereafter the brother of the petitioner Ramji relinquished his share therefrom in favour of the petitioner after purchase of this land. The same was mutated in the name of petitioner in the record of rights on 3-6-1971 vide entry No. 933 and same has been sanctioned after verification on 15-9-1971. The petitioner purchased the remaining part of the land of survey No. 185 from the respondent No. 3 vide sale deed dated 1-4-1985 and as such, the petitioner has become the full owner of the entire survey No. 185-The Dy. Collector issued the notice in the year 1984 to call upon the petitioner to show why the transaction of the sale deed dated 22nd March, 1971 may not be cancelled. The petitioner contested the matter, but the Dy. Collector held that the sale deed dated 22nd March, 1971 has been made in violation of provisions of Sec. 8 of the Act, 1947 and imposed a fine and ordered for summarily eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner has taken up the matter in revision. In the revision application, the petitioner has pointed out that he has already purchased the remaining part of survey No. 185. The other contentions have also been raised, but the revisional authority has dismissed the revision under the order dated 28th November, 1985. Hence, this Special Civil Application.

(3.) Shri Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondent initiated after 12 years of sale is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. It has next been contended that whatever fragmentation has been made by the petitioner is no more survives in view of the fact that the remaining part of survey No. 185 has been purchased by the petitioner from respondent No. 3 on 1-4-1985. The other sale deed has not been questioned by the respondent. It has next been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the order of the lower authority is maintained then in the changed circumstances, it will be a case of fragmentation.