Ajmeri Abdulbhai Umarbhai vs Patel Punjalal Himatlal and Others

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—Since all the captioned matters involve identical facts and questions of law, the same are being decided by this common judgment.

By way of present petitions, the Petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 08th May 2001 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Revision Application Nos. TEN.B.A. 207 to 212 of 1990, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Revision Applications preferred by thePetitioner herein.

It is the case of the Petitioner that various lands have been purchased by the applicant herein at an interval of one or two years from the year 1970 onwards. The applicant is an agricultural labourer belonging to minority community. It is further the case of the Petitioner that in all the aforesaid cases the record of rights entries have been mutated and duly certified. It is further the case of the Petitioner that after the lapse of about 8 to 18 years in different cases, the issues have been raised by the Respondent-authority, which ought not to have been done. However, the said aspect has not been appreciated by the Deputy Collector in appeal and the Tribunal in Revision Application. Hence, present petition.

Mr. P.J. Vyas, learned advocate for the Petitioner, has submitted that though the period of limitation is not laid down in Section 84-C of the Act, the powers have to be exercised within a reasonable time; that when the Respondent No. 1 has admitted thePetitioner being an agricultural labourer, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the Revision Application and that the Tribunal ought to have directed the parties to approach the Civil Court when the owner Chavada Becharji Bhimaji contended that the land was transferred under mortgage. In view of aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of theRespondent-State, has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal has passed the order after taking into consideration the pros and cons of the matter and the Tribunal has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the conclusion. Hence, it is prayed that present petitions may be dismissed.

Having considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, averments made in the petitions and the documentary evidence produced on record, it transpires that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in case of the Petitioners is just and proper. The Tribunal has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter and has arrived at the conclusion. There is no illegality much less any perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has categorically observed that there is a total ban u/s 63 of the Act to sell an agricultural land to a non-agriculturist. Therefore, any transaction of sale or mortgage to a person who is clearly a non-agriculturist would go against the very scheme of the Act. Here in the present case, the Petitioner is a non agriculturist and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that it would be a transaction which requires to be classified as void and non-est and such transactions even by a passage of time cannot be made legitimate.

In view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the conclusion. Over and above the reasons assigned hereinabove, I adopt the reasons assigned by the Tribunal and do not find any illegality much less any perversity in the findings recorded. I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. No case is made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Hence, present petitions deserve to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, present petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged in each petition with no order as to costs.

Interim relief, if any, stands vacated in each petition.