KOLI SORSINGHBHAI SHARKERBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by this Special Civil Application, challenges the order of the Deputy Collector, Chhota Udepur, dated 30th October, 1984 passed under Sec. 9 of the Bombay Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act 1947"), and the order of the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, dated 10th June 1986, confirming the aforesaid order of the Deputy Collector.

(2.) . The facts of the case are that the petitioner is admittedly holding the land of Survey No. 9/3 situate in the Sim of Village Ambadi. This land, as per the case of the petitioner, is contiguous to the land bearing Survey No. 394 situate in Sim of Village Baravad. The land of Survey No. 394 belonged to respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 sold his land of Survey No. 394 to the petitioner and that transaction of sale is made under a registered Sale Deed dated 23rd June 1980. In the sale Deed aforesaid, there is a recital that, "... .on the north, of the Survey No. 394 the field of the petitioner's Survey No. 9/3 is situated. . . .". Pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 135C of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1948, necessary correction in the land revenue record has been made and the name of the petitioner w.as entered as holder of the land of Survey No. 394 vide Entry No. 412. This entry in the revenue record has been made on the strength of the registered Sale Deed which has been executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) . The Deputy Collector, Chhota Udepur, initiated proceedings under Sec. 7 of the Act 1947. Under its order dated 30th October, 1984, it has been held that the Sale Deed executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner of the land bearing Survey No. 394 is invalid under Sec. 9 (1) of the Act, 1947. Under Sec. 9 (2) of the Act 1947, the said authority imposed a fine on the respondent No. 2 of 50/-. Further, under Sec. 9 (3) of the Act 1947, the said authority has ordered that the petitioner be summarily evicted from the land bearing Survey No. 394 and the posession thereof be restored to respondent No. 2. The petitioner, being aggrieved of the order aforesaid of the Deputy Collector, filed revision application before the respondent No. 1 which came to be dismissed on 10th June 1986. Hence this Speciarl Civil Application before this Court.