PRABHUDAS M PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged an order dated 5. 7. 93 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat by which the revision application of the petitioner against the order dated 10. 3. 93 passed by the Deputy Collector, Gandhinagar came to be rejected.

(2.) THE petitioner had purchased agricultural land out of block No. 1012 of village Adalaj admeasuring 3 acres and 8 gunthas on 16. 6. 82 and revenue entries were certified on or around 23rd June 1984. Nearly 10 years after the purchase and 8 years of certification of the revenue entries, on 11th February 1992, for the first time, a notice came to be issued under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short 'the Fragmentation Act') indicating that the sale was in breach of the provisions of the Fragmentation Act. The Authorities found that the petitioner had purchased a fragment out of a block and the sale was therefore invalidated.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, I find that there was considerable delay in initiation of the proceedings under the Fragmentation Act. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Valjibhai Jagjivanbhai v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (3) GLR 1852 has frowned upon such grossly belated initiation of proceedings. I am conscious of the fact that subsequently a Division Bench of this Court in another decision dated 2. 2. 09 in LPA No. 2155 of 2007 had upheld the fragmentation proceedings initiated after considerable delay on certain grounds. In the present case, however, I find that before the petitioner purchased the said land, the authorities had granted NA permission for 26 acres of land out of the entire block. The petitioner purchased the remaining portion of land i. e. 3 acres and 8 gunthas. Counsel for the petitioner stated that NA permission was taken in revision by the State Government, but eventually the revision was dropped thereby confirming the NA order. That being the position, to my mind what the petitioner purchased was the remaining portion of the block. The earlier part having already been permitted to be converted into NA by the Government authorities themselves and coupled with the considerable delay in initiation of the proceedings would convince me that the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside.