BECHARBHAI SHANKERBHAI PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was enacted with the object and purpose that persons who are really cultivating the lands as a tenants, their rights are being protected. To protect the agricultural tenants at the time when these owners of the lands were exploiting them by taking substantial share of the agricultural produce this Act was enacted. The conditions of the persons who were cultivating the land by putting hard labour and working in hot, rain and winter even in the odd hours were not good and they were getting meagre share, which is hardly sufficient for them to meet even the expenses of their bare livelihood. They were not having a house for inhabitation. They were not having cloths on their body. Another purpose was to see that this agricultural land is not converted for nonagricultural purposes so that it may adversely effect the economy of the country and to avoid the possible difficulty to have sufficient food grains to meet the growing demand of citizens. There was another reason that the person of the means may not hold the land and thereby deprive real agriculturist of the land. It is not gainsay that this class of the persons after selling of the land will render themselves landless as the substantial amount which they received as sale price will be spent in discharging their liabilities and as a result thereof they will not only become landless but also jobless. They have to depend on mazduri. To see, protect and fulfil these objects and purposes, the legislature taken care and precaution and necessary provisions made in the act whereunder in case where a nonagriculturist intends to purchase agricultural land, he has to take the prior permission of competent authority. Even, if the purchaser is an agriculturist still there are restrictions on purchase of land to certain extent with which presently in this case we are not concerned.

(2.) Though the Act has been enacted with good objects and purposes, but in implementation thereof I am constrained to observe the Government machinery is responsible for the same. It is acting contrary to the very basis features, purposes and objects of this Act. The reasons are manifold, which are not necessarily to be touched here. The authorities concerned with the implementation of provisions of the Act first permit the things go illegally and when everything has been done contrary to the provisions of the Act at all levels then on one fine morning initiate the action for cancellation of the sale deed or revenue record entry based on the sale deed. By that time, the matter is delayed considerably and existing position of the land is also totally changed. The present is the case which clearly illustrate what it is said earlier. The petitioner as what his learned counsel admitted, has in fact purchased the agricultural land in dispute for the purpose of carrying on nonagricultural activities since the very inception of the day of the purchase. He purchased this land to carry thereon his business of manufacturing of bricks. From the judgments made by the authorities below, it is clear that the sale deed of the land in dispute was held to be invalid on the ground that it is made without prior permission of the competent authority which was essential as the petitioner was not an agriculturist. This sale was effected under a registered sale deed. The officer, who is concerned with the registration of this document has not taken care at the first opportunity to see whether this transaction of sale is valid or not. But this offier favours registration of documents on presentation thereof immediately for the reasons, which are now well known. He may be a Revenue Officer discharging his duties under the Registration Act, but when the sale relates to agricultural land it is his concern to see that the conveyance is executed after compliance with all necessary requirements of the law and it is a valid document under the Act. He is not correct to believe or take that he is only concerned that on the document proper stamp duty is paid. It is the first stage where in case this document would have been examined with reference to its validity then it would have served manifold purposes i.e. the illegal sale of agricultural land would not have been there unnecessary litigation would not have been there and last but not least the agricultural land would not have been converted for nonagricultural purposes. I am constrained to observe that the officers of the State favour that the people may act contrary to rules, regulation and Act, otherwise there is no scope for corruption. That is not the end of the matter. Then comes the next stage. The petitioner reling on this document applied to the competent Revenue Officer for effective consequential changes in the revenue record. His name may have to be entered as holder of the land in Revenue Record on the basis of this document. At this stage two officers of the Revenue Department, which are closely connected concerned and related to the implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the Act, 1948 i.e. Talati-cum-mantri and Deputy Mamlatdar or Mamlatdar as the case may be come into picture. This is the second stage where it is expected of these two officers to take all care, precaution and scrutiny of the document to see that it is legal or not. But for the well known reasons these officers also permit the things to go unchecked without scrutining and forthwith as in case they start to make such investigation or inquiry then as are being on receiving end they will be looser. Here it is the duty of the concerned Talati-cum-mantri to see, ascertain and satisfied that this sale deed is valid before submitting the matter for certification of the entry to the Deputy Mamlatdar or Mamlatdar as the case may be. From this channel invariably this document is passed over smoothly as it roles on the wheels to reach to Deputy Mamlatdar or Mamlatdar which have adequately been greased. Then come the third stage i.e. where the Deputy Mamlatdar or Mamlatdar certifies this entry. Here also no inquiry, investigation or scrutining of such document appears to have been made otherwise at this stage it can very well be noticed that the sale deed is not a valid or legal document. This may possibly happen only when these officers are adequately been tipped by the concerned person and as a result of it they do not undertake any scruitine of this document re its validity, correctness and propriety. Then come fourth stage i.e. where the petitioner has prayed for grant of permission to use this land for nonagricultural purposes. The learned counsel for the State states that the District Panchayat is the authority concerned to deal with such applications. Here before granting a permission for the use of the agricultural land in dispute for nonagricultural purpose the competent authority should have taken care to prima facie satisfy that the sale deed is legal and valid document. Here also this matter has been decided without caring for all these things. It is unfortunate that there is no coordination amongst the officers and District Panchayat and as a result of which officer concerned acts in his own way. The Act had been enacted in the year 1948 but now the needs desires, comforts ambitions and have of the officers and employees been drastically increased. It is said rampant corruption is there in the country. From the facts of this case as well as the matters which earlier have come up in this court and are coming everyday necessarily inference follows therefrom that what this peoples say, feel and express for corruption seems to be correct. In case a single window procedure may have been there at the very threshold the illegality would have been detected and thereafter this document would not have conferred any benefits whatsoever to the petitioner. Possibly the corruption would also been controlled. However, this is the concern of the State Government and its officers to see that these illegalities in the transactions and the action of the citizens contrary to the provisions of the laws etc. are being controlled.

(3.) The petitioner by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges legality, propriety and correctness of the decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 17.2.1989 wherein Revision Application No.TEN.B.A.54/88 filed by the petitioner against the order of the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar dated 26.5.1986 in Tenancy Appeal No.235/84, has been confirmed. The Prant Officer, Gandhinagar under his order confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar dated 24.1.1983 under which it has held that, transfer of the disputed land made in favour of the petitioner by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 is in violation of the provisions of the Act, 1948.