RATENBEN GHELA AYER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is directed against an order dated 31. 3. 1992 passed by the Assistant Collector, Morbi in Ceiling Revision Case No. 1/1992 as well as an order dated 30. 11. 1992 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application being TEN. B. R. 25/1992. Issue pertains to the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act ("the Act" for short ). Agriculturists Arjanbhai Rajabhai and Hamirbhai Arjanbhai were holding agricultural lands in village Songadh Taluka Maliya in excess of ceiling limit applicable in the area. Proceedings were initiated but subsequently dropped by Mamlatdar and ALT. However, upon further revision before the Deputy Collector and Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, proceedings came to be remanded, ultimately culminating into impugned order dated 31. 3. 1992 being passed by the Assistant Collector who held that there was excess land to the extent of 15 acres and 25 gunthas to be surrendered from the land account of petitioner No. 2 who happens to be the grandson of original account holder Hamirbhai Arjanbhai. Petitioner No. 1 is wife of petitioner No. 2. The said order was challenged before Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by the petitioners, but the revision application came to be dismissed by order dated 30. 11. 1992. They have therefore, filed the present petition challenging the said orders.

(2.) ASSISTANT Collector as well as Gujarat Revenue Tribunal came to the conclusion that Hamirbhai Arjanbhai had by way of partition transferred 42 acres and 26 gunthas of land in favour of his grandson Narsang Ghela petitioner No. 2 and 27 acres and 39 gunthas in favour of wife of his grandson-petitioner No. 1 after 24. 1. 1971. To these aspects there is no dispute. Both the authorities also came to the conclusion that though required under Section 8 of the Act, no declaration of the Collector was obtained to the effect that such transfers by way of partition were not made in anticipation and in order to defeat the object of the Amending Act 1972. Admittedly in fact, no such application was also made before the Collector. Ultimately, the Collector as well as tribunal therefore, ignored such transfers and calculated the excess land in the hands of Hamirbhai Arjanbhai and declared 15 acres and 25 gunthas of land as excess.

(3.) FACTS being not in dispute, the only question that remains to be discussed is whether such transfer of land by way of partition could have been saved in view of the fact that son of Hamirbhai Arjanbhai-Gela Arjan i. e. father of petitioner No. 2 had predeceased him. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since son of Hamirbhai Arjanbhai had passed away, out of natural love and affection, he transferred part of his land in favour of his grandson i. e. son of deceased Gela Arjan and his wife the present petitioners. To my mind, this could have been one of the grounds for consideration by the Collector while examining the request of the land holders to grant their application under Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act. However, in absence of any such application, the provision of Section 8 would apply in full vigour and the transfers shall have to be ignored.