DINESHKUMAR BANUKUMAR SAVANIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue as required to be considered in the present petition as such is covered by the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: K. S. Radhakrishnan, C. J. and Akil Kureshi, J.) dated 17. 3. 2009 in the case of "rajenbhai Baldevbhai Shah v. Baijiben Kabhaibhai Patanvadia and Ors. " in Special Civil Application No. 11896 of 2004 and allied matters, whereby the view taken is that if the agriculturist is permitted to dispose of the agricultural property through testamentary disposition to a non-agriculturist, the same will defeat the very purpose and object of the Tenancy Act, which cannot be permitted by a Court of law and, therefore, it is observed by the Division Bench that the earlier views of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Manharlal Ratanlal @ Radmansinh Chausinh v. Taiyabali Jaji Mohmed and others reported in 1967-68 (Vol. V) GLT 199 (Coram: J. B. Mehta, J.) and another decision of this Court in the case of "ghanshyambhai Nabheram v. State of Gujarat and others", reported in 1999 (2) GLR, 1061 (Coram: Rajesh Balia, J.) as well as in the case of "pravinbhai Bhailalbhai Gor v. Rajivkumar Gupta, Collector, Vadodara", reported in 1999 (1) GLR, 440 (Coram: Rajesh Balia, J.) is over-ruled in view of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of "sangappa Kalyanappa Bangi (dead) through LR" reported in 1998 SC, 3229 and another decision in the case of "jayamma v. Maria Bai and another", reported in (2004) 7 SCC, 459 and it is further observed by the Division Bench that Section 63 of the Tenancy Act also bars the transfer of the agricultural lands by an agriculturist to non-agriculturist for non-agricultural purpose, unless the permission is obtained from the Collector or any authurised officer as provided in that section and the matter deserves to be decided accordingly.

(2.) HOWEVER, neither Mr. A. K. Trivedi nor Saloni S. Gupta was present on 24. 9. 2008, and not even present today when the matter was called out thrice. Hence, dismissed. Liberty to apply in case of difficulty. Rule discharged. I. R. , if any, stands vacated.