CHHOTABHAI DAHYABHAI THAKORE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21st April, 1986 passed in revision by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, confirming the judgment and order dated 31st August, 1985 passed by the Collector, Kheda, by which the Collector had confirmed the order dated 4th April, 1985 made by the Deputy Collector, Nadiad, forfeiting the land to the State on the ground that the land which stood in the name of deceased Babaji Jinaji was a new tenure land and there was breach of condition in transferring the said land to the petitioner. The land of survey Nos. 272, 290/1 and 290/3 were originally belonging to Babaji Jinaji, since deceased. The petitioner is an agriculturist and, after death of Babaji Jinaji, he is in occupation of the suit land. His name was duly mutated in the R.T.S. proceeding by the Mamlatdar, Mehmedabad, as far back as on 20th May, 1973. The said entry was duly certified by the competent authority. The petitioner has invested large amount in the said land and he was cultivating the same. He has also raised loan thereon from time to time, and at no time his possession was objected to by the order passed by the Revenue Authorities forfeiting the holding of the petitioner. the Revenue Authorities, nor any proceedings were taken against the entries which were duly made in accordance with the provisions of the Land Revenue Code and the Rules.

(2.) The petitioner has received show-cause notice dated 23rd August, 1982 issued by the Deputy Collector, Nadiad, calling upon him to show cause why the land may not be ordered to be forfeited for breach of condition. The land was stated to be new tenure land, standing in the name of Babaji Jinaji and as such transfer of the same without prior approval of the authority concerned is stated to be illegal. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the said show-cause notice contending inter alia that he is in occupation of the land since 1973, and that his name would not have been entered if the land was really new tenure land, and that his possession was authorised. It has further been contended by the petitioner that mere use of the words 'new tenure' in the revenue record does not necessarily mean that the land was unalienable. Under order dated 3rd December, 1982 the Deputy Collector, Nadiad, decided to forfeit the land in question, which was cultivated by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order before the Collector, Kheda. However, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector, Nadiad, after remand, passed order against the petitioner for forfeiture of the land. The matter was taken up by the petitioner in appeal before the Collector, Kheda, who, by his order dated 4th April, 1985, confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector and dismissed the appeal. Then the petitioner approached the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, by filing revision application under S.211 of the Land Revenue Code. The revision application also came to be dismissed under order dated 21st April, 1986. Hence this Special Civil Application.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the Government Circular dated 21st September, 1985 (Annexure-D) contended that all the three authorities fell in error in forfeiting the land of the petitioner on the ground that it was a new tenure land. According to him, mere mention of 'new tenure' in the revenue record was not sufficient for passing order of forfeiture of the land for breach of conditions.