LAWS(GJH)-1999-6-2

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SHAMRAJI CHELAJI MARI

Decided On June 22, 1999
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
V/S
Shamraji Chelaji Mari And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment and order inasmuch as there is a common question of law involved. The facts so far as they are relevant and pertinent to the application of the law on the subject are of almost no significance.

(2.) These are petitions filed by the State of Gujarat under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in different revision applications. However, all matters have a common root. It appears that the respondents in these group of petitions (the petitioners in revisions before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal) are holders of agricultural land who have C. A. Nos. 5707, 5709, 5852, 5854, 6188, 6190, 6721, 6732, 6733, 6758, 6798, 6805, 6808 and 6911 all of 1998. acquired such lands by appropriate transfers in their favour, and the mutation entries in their favour have been certified by the competent authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

(3.) After a long period of time, after the mutation entries in favour of the holders were certified, it appeared to the authority that such transfers were in violation of Secs. 2(2), 2(6) and Sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, and consequently suo motu revisions were initiated against the holders under Sec. 84C of the said Act for declaring the transactions in question to be void and illegal. These proceedings (suo motu revisions) resulted in an order against the holders and the lands were directed to be vested in the Government. Against the said order the land holders preferred appeals before the Deputy Collector-Mamlatdar, which appeals came to be dismissed. It was against the dismissal of these appeals that the holders of the land filed revision applications before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which were heard and allowed under the impugned judgment and order. The Tribunal allowed the revision applications purely on a question of law and it is this question which is now being agitated before this Court.