BIJOLBHAI KADWABHAI BHARWAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these special civil applications the issues raised are identical in nature and as such they have been taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgement. In petitions No. 9339/95, 9940/95 and 9941/95, the petitioners purchased agricultural land in the sim of village Gadha from respondent No. 2 by registered sale deed dated 5.3.1982. Necessary entries to this effect in favour of the petitioners have been made in the village Form No. 6 on 8.7.1982, which was duly certified by the competent authority on 31st August, 1982. The Collector has started suo moto enquiry into the aforesaid sale deed, and under order dated 17.8.1993 cancelled the entry made in favour of the petitioners in the revenue record. The petitioners preferred appeals before the Government which were dismissed on 29th March, 1995. Hence these special civil applications. In special civil application No. 9342 of 1995 petitioner No. 3 is the brother of petitioners No. 1 and 2. Name of petitioner No. 3 was entered for l/3rd share in agricultural land bearing survey Nos. 168, 169 and 170 of the sim of village Gadha, Taluak Modasa, District Banaskantha. Entry to this effect has been posted in village Form No. 6, being Entry No. 825 dated 13.6.1991 which was certified on 18.7.1991. In this case also Collector had started suo moto inquiry, and vide his order dated 7th August, 1993 the Collector cancelled the entry. The petitioners preferred appeal before the Government, which has been dismissed under order dated 29th March, 1995.

(2.) From the impugned orders it comes out that the State Government has cancelled the entries on the ground that the sale made in the first three cases as well as the transfer made in the last case by petitioner No. 1 and 2 therein in favour of petitioner No. 3 were illegal as they were not agriculturists. However, the counsel for the respondents does not dispute that all these petitioners are doing agricultural operations in the land and this land has not been utilised by them for any other purpose. It is true that at one point of time, i.e., in the year 1982 when the land was purchased in three cases and in the last case when transfer was made in favour of petitioner No. 3, they would not have been agriculturists, but this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that for all these years the petitioners are carrying on agricultural operation on the land and after 15 years it is now difficult to say that they are not agriculturists. The entry might have been objectionable at that time, but today their position cannot be that much objectionable.

(3.) In the last case it appears that two brothers have given part of their share to their own brother, and in other cases the petitioners purchased the land. The Collector and the State Government have taken strict view in the matter, but both have lost sight of the fact that they themselves are responsible for all this.