SAVITABEN Vs. SHANKERBHAI NAIKABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges by this Special Civil Application, the order, Annexure 'A' of the Assistant Collector, Dahod, in Fragmentation Act Case No. 2791 of 1983 dated 6-11-1984 and that of the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department dated 17th June, 1986 in revision application No. SRD/Con/17 of 1985. Under the later order, the revisional authority confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector, Dahod dated 6-11-1984.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner purchased two agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 180/1 and 180/2 by registered sale deed executed on 2-6-1982 and 14-6-1982 by the holders of those lands in her favour. As both these lands were fragment under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1947) the Assistant Collector, Dahod, initiated proceedings under S.7 read with S.9 of the Act, 1947, for the purpose of impeaching the transactions aforesaid. The proceedings have been initiated on a complaint filed by the respondent No. 3 herein. The respondent No. 3 is the second purchaser of the land of Survey No. 180/2. After notice to the petitioner and hearing her, the Assistant Collector, Dahod, under the impugned order held that the sale of the aforesaid two lands in favour of the petitioner has been made in contravention of the provisions of the Act, 1947, and the same were not acceptable under S.9 of the Act, 1947. The petitioner challenged that order of Assistant Collector, Dahod, by filing a revision application before the Secretary (Appeal), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad, and under the order Annexure 'B' dated 17-6-1986, the same came to be dismissed. Hence, this Special Civil Application.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that both the authorities below have not considered that though these two lands were fragment, but nevertheless by purchase of these two lands by the petitioner, the purpose and object of the Act, 1947, has been fulfilled. In fact, the said transactions were in respect of the same survey number and the land was purchased by one and the same person, and therefore, two fragments were consolidated which would advance the object of the Act further. It has next been contended that the next sale of the survey No. 180/2 made by the holder of the same in favour of the respondent No. 3 is illegal as he was not the party to the said transaction. The sale aforesaid was required to be ignored because it was not a sale in the eye of law.