USHABEN ARVINDBHAI AMIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have challenged judgement and order dated 9. 4. 2004 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 129/1994.

(2.) BASIC facts emerging from the record may be noted at this stage. 2. 1 Appellant No. 1 Kamlaben Manubhai Patel held 67 acres and 17 gunthas of agricultural land. Her husband Manubhai was holding 6 acres and 7 gunthas of land. Necessary declaration by filling up the form under the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act ("the Ceiling Act" for short) was therefore, made declaring a combined holding of 73 acres and 24 gunthas of land between the husband and wife. This declaration was processed under the Agricultural Case No. 293/76. 2. 2 Jugalbhai, son of appellant No. 1 separately held 43 acres and 34 gunthas of land. In the additional affidavit dated 11. 3. 2008 filed by the appellants, it is stated that this was pursuant to a family partition affected on 9. 8. 1969. Though Jugalbhai had four children, only on of them Ajit was over 18 years of age on 1. 4. 1976. Jugalbhai also filed necessary form under the Ceiling Act which was registered as case No. 53/1976. Mamlatdar and ALT by his order dated 25. 8. 1980 in Ceiling Case No. 53/1976 came to the conclusion that though Jugalbhai held agricultural land in excess of 36 acres which was of ceiling unit, he had an adult son as on 1. 4. 76 and therefore, declarant was entitled to hold two units and therefore, no part of the holding was thus in excess of the ceiling limit. Proceedings were therefore, dropped. Thus the declaration filed by Jugalbhai came to be processed and finalised way back in the year 1980 which has attained finality. 2. 3 Mamlatdar and ALT as well as Deputy Collector found that Kamlaben (since her husband Manubhai in the meantime had expired) was holding 37 acres and 24 gunthas of land in excess of ceiling limit. Upon revision application, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in its order dated November 19, 1990 noted that the applicant has stated that his family consists of four members including one adult son. With respect to the contention of the advocate for appellant No. 1 that such adult son should also be granted one unit, the Tribunal observed that there are no details available with respect to actual land held by the son between 24. 1. 1971 to 1. 4. 1976. Therefore, proceedings were remanded to the Mamlatdar and ALT for fresh disposal after taking into consideration, the land held by such major son (i. e. Jugal ). It may however, be noted that appellant No. 1 had transferred part of her land holding in favour of Ajit between 24. 1. 1971 to 31. 3. 1976. However, such transfers were not approved under Section 8 of the Ceiling Act. 2. 4 Once again the Mamlatdar and ALT as well as Deputy Collector rejected the request of appellant No. 1 for exclusion of additional land. Proceedings reached Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the second round. Tribunal by order dated 30. 8. 1993 disallowed the revision application and confirmed the declaration of Mamlatdar and ALT that appellant No. 1 Kamlaben held 43 acres and 34 gunthas of excess land. In the said proceedings, Ajit was joined as revision applicant No. 2. This order of the tribunal was challenged before the Learned Single Judge who by his detailed order dated 9. 4. 2004 dismissed the petition observing inter-alia that petitioner No. 1 had initially transferred certain lands in favour of Ajit-her grandson, which transfers were opposed to Sections 7 and 8 of the Ceiling Act and therefore, such lands were also considered part of the holding of petitioner No. 1. Thus having failed in the attempt to come out of the provisions of the Ceiling Act, upon remand before the Mamlatdar and ALT, it was argued that Ajit was entitled to one additional unit as grandson of petitioner No. 1. It was observed that Ajit was already granted one additional unit while processing form of his father Jugalbhai and no additional unit therefore can now be granted.

(3.) BEFORE us learned advocate Shri Nilesh Pandya relying on decision of this Court in case of Kashiben w/o. Ambalal Chhotalal Patel and ors. v. State of Gujarat and anr. reported in 1971 GLR 540 and in case of Sheth Chinubhai Chimanlal v. State of Gujarat and anr. reported in 1982 (1)GLR 317, vehemently submitted that the authorities as well as Learned Single Judge erred in not granting remainder of the additional unit of Ajit in the present case. It was contended that the authorities were required to club the forms of appellant No. 1 Kamlaben with that of Jugalbhai and ought to have granted three units - one for Kamlaben/manubhai, one for Jugalbhai and one for Ajit. Heavy reliance was placed on the remand order of the tribunal dated 19. 11. 1990.