PANDYA BHERULAL VARDHAJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this Special Civil Application arises in respect to Survey No. 85 admeasuring 0.28 Gunthas of Ambaji, Taluka Danta, District Banaskantha. The respondent No. 2 herein was the owner and occupant of 1/3rd of the land of Survey No. 85. The other 1/3rd of the disputed land was of the ownership and occupancy of predecessor of respondent No. 3 and another 1/3rd of the land was of the ownership of respondent No. 4 herein. The petitioner has purchased the 1/3rd share of respondent No. 2 of the land of Survey No. 85. The said land is not an agricultural land and is situated within the Municipal limits of Ambaji. The other parts of the lands were purchased by Shri Shivram Lachchiram Joshi and Shri Mangulal Dalsukhlal Joshi. The petitioner purchased the land in dispute under a registered Sale Deed of the year 1972.

(2.) . The Assistant Collector, Palanpur, gave a notice to the petitioner and two other purchasers under S.8 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1947') to show cause why the sale should not be declared to be void and penalty for transfer of land contrary to the provisions of the Act 1947 should not be imposed. The notice has been given on the basis of the fact that the land is noted as Fragment vide village entry No. 139 dated 10-1-1966 and under S.6(2) of the Act 1947, the notice was served. The Assistant Collector, Palanpur, registered a case No. RTS/Fragment/12 of 1983 and held a single inquiry in respect of all the three transactions of the land in dispute made in favour of the petitioner and two other persons. After holding inquiry, under its order dated 7-3-1984, the said authority held the transactions of sale in question as void and further held that the land is to be reverted to its original owner and Rs. 250.00 was levied as fine. The petitioner and two other persons, against the order of the Assistant Collector, Palanpur, approached to the Secretary (Appeals), Government of Gujarat, Revenue Department, Ahmedabad, by way of revision applications. The revision applications were dismissed by the said appellate authority under the order dated 11th December 1984. Hence this Special Civil Application.

(3.) Shri G. R. Shaikh, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that initiation of action under S.9 of the Act 1947 for declarartion of the sale transactions to be void and for imposing penalty and other consequential orders has been issued after about 12 years from the date of sale and as such, whole proceedings deserve to be set aside only on this ground. It has next been contended that the owners of the land were not given the notice under S.6(2) of the Act 1947 and as such, the provisions of S.9 of the said Act could not have been resorted in the present case against the petitioners. It has further been contended that the petitioner was in possession of the land for the last 25 years and the land was not an agricultural land nor it was a fallow road land, but it is a rocky hill land which can otherwise be put to any agricultural use and in fact, it has not been used for carrying out any agricultural operation. The petitioner has raised construction of house on the land after spending huge amount. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the facts of this case, the order of eviction of the petitioner may not be warranted.