PATEL GANESHBHAI HARISING Vs. BAVA HIRABHARTHI SHANKERBHARTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Shankerbharthi Jalambharthi held survey No. 10 of village Pepli of Palanpur Taluka in Banaskantha District as a `Pasayata land. With effect from 1st August 1955 the Pasayata tenure was abolished by virtue of the provisions of the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act for the sake of brevity) Under sec. 6 the land in question could be regranted to its original holder if he paid six times the assessment on or before 31st July 1960. On 15th July 1957 an unregistered and unstamped sale deed in respect of the land in question was executed by Shankerbharthi in favour of the petitioner. The total consideration for the transaction was Rs. 1 125

(2.) The original petitioner is the adopted son of Shankerbharthi. It is the case of the purchaser that he had paid full consideration to Shankerbharthi and that Shankerbharthi had parted with possession of the land in question to him. Since 1961 the purchaser has been shown in revenue records as the cultivator of the land in question. By order dated 13th June 1966 the land in question was regranted under sec. 6 to Hirabharthi the adopted son of Shankerbharthi who died in 1963. The purchaser who is the appellant before us applied for regularisation of sale in his favour and his possession. He made that application on 22nd November 1968 to the Deputy Collector who called for the report of the Mamlatdar. On 8th March 1969 Deputy Collector made an order regularizing the sale and possession of the purchaser. Hirabharthi appealed against that order to the Collector. The Collector allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Deputy Collector because Hirabharthi was not heard by the Deputy Collector before he made his order dated 8th March 1969. The Deputy Collector upon remand heard Hirabharthi and regularized the sale in his favour and his possession of the land in question. Hirabharthi appealed against that order to the Collector who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order made by the Deputy Collector. Hirabharthi challenged that order in an application which he made to the Special Secretary to the Government of Gujarat. After hearing the parties the Special Secretary confirmed the order and dismissed the application made by Hirabharthi.

(3.) That order was challenged by Hirabharthi in Special Civil Application No. 1443 of 1972. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition recorded the conclusion that there was no valid transfer of the land in question in favour of the purchaser. He therefore quashed the orders made by the revenue authorities and allowed the writ petition. It is that order which is challenged by the purchaser in this appeal.