STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PRAVINBHAI BHAILALBHAI GOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which has been raised in this Letters Patent Appeal, challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned single Judge on 1.9.98 in Special Civil Application No.1123 of 1998, whereby the said petition filed by the respondent herein came to be allowed, is whether the ultimate conclusion recorded by the learned single Judge is in any way unjust, perverse or questionable or not?

(2.) In order to examine the aforesaid question, a few skeleton projection of facts may be narrated, at first. The appellant is State of Gujarat on behalf of whom a show cause notice dated 29/11/1997 under rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules came to be issued, inter alia, contending that there was breach and infraction of the provisions of sections 43 and 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. One Mohanbhai had executed a will in favour of the respondent in this appeal on 15.2.86 and the executant of the Will Mohanbhai expired on 1.10.87 and the respondent herein-original petitioner, therefore, claimed that his name should be mutated in the revenue record. Therefore, on the basis of the said Will, after holding inquiry, the name of the original petitioner came to be recorded in the revenue record on 7.4.88 in respect of an agricultural land situated at village Pavelpur in Vadodara district.

(3.) The show cause notice dated 29.11.97 came to be issued in respect of the disputed land bearing revenue survey No.242 mutated in the revenue record by entry No.1085 which was also further approved and sanctioned on 28.3.89 and 11.3.92 respectively. It is, therefore, clear that almost after a lapse of more than 8 years, the show cause notice was issued by the Collector, Vadodara exercising his powers under rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, on the ground that there was no prior approval of the competent authority required under section 43 of the Act and as there was a transfer of the land by an agriculturist to a non-agriculturist violating the provisions of section 63 of the said Act.