JAYABEN ISWARBHAI VADIWALA Vs. MAMALATDAR KAMAREJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the petitions arise out of similar factual background. The petitioners have challenged show cause notices issued by Mamlatdar, Kamrej in September 1996 calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the purchase of agricultural lands made by the petitioners be not declared in violation of Section 63 and 64 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act ("the tenancy Act" for short), same being opposed to Sections 2 (6) and 63 of the tenancy Act and why proceedings under Section 84c of the Act should not be initiated. Show cause notices are challenged only on the ground that action is initiated after unreasonable period of time only on ground of delay and laches on part of the Revenue Authority, the show cause notices were sought to be challenged.

(2.) APPARENTLY, the lands were purchased in the year 1989 by the petitioners. The petitioners do not contend that sale transaction were in conformity with the provisions of the tenancy Act in particular with Section 2 (6), 63 and 64 thereof. They only say that whatever be the defects in the sale transaction and whatever be the provisions of the tenancy Act, no inquiry at such a belated stage could be made and on that count alone show cause notices should be quashed.

(3.) IT is by now well settled that High Court would not ordinarily encourage litigation against show cause notice. I had occasion to deal with this issue in very similar factual background in Special Civil Application No. 9571/1996 which came to be disposed of by order dated 15. 5. 2009 in following terms :