STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KANTILAL MAGANBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. P. Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioner-State. The impugned judgment and order of the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN B.S. 102/ 89 is dated 24th July 1992. Apart from delay the learned Tribunal has on facts, found that the land admeasuring 9 A. 26 G. out of S.N. 412, 427, 448 and 489 could not be added in the land holding by the respondent inasmuch as the tenant of the said land was held to be the deemed purchaser under the relevant provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and accordingly as on the crucial date, said land was not part of the land held by the respondents. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the Deputy Collector committed error in holding that the permission under Section 8 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 ("the Act" for short) was required to be obtained and in absence of such permission, said land ought to have been included in the land holding of the respondents. Mr. Joshi tried to submit that Section 8 of the Act takes within its sweep transfer of land pursuant to the operation of law as contained in the relevant provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948. Section 8, sub-sec. (1) which is relevant for the purpose reads as under:

(2.) Upon plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it would clearly appear that the transfers by way of sale, gift, mortgage, delivery of possession, exchange lease, surrender, partition or other wise are apparently transfers inter vivos and not transfers by operation of law. This view will stand fortified by further clear expression in the provision itself, namely that such transfer or partition unless it is proved to the. contrary be deemed to have been made in anticipation in order to defeat the object of the Act. It would, therefore, be clear that the provision contemplates the acts of parties in the matter if transfers as particularized in the aforesaid provision. Hence, transfers by operation of law cannot be said to be covered under Section 8 which is quoted hereinabove. In that view of the matter, this petition is not required to be entertained. Rejected accordingly.