KANTABEN RAVJIBHAI PATEL DECD THRO HER HEIRS vs AGRICULTURAL LAND TRIBUNAL & MAMLATDAR & ORS.

Heard learned Advocates for the parties.

Challenge in this LPA under Clause 14 is to oral judgment dated 22.10.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in SCA No.4911 of 2000, by which order dated 28.04.2000 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dismissing the revision application preferred by the appellant /petitioner was dismissed, in which order dated 22.03.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector, Chotaudepur in Tenancy Appeal No.3 of 1992, whereby the Deputy Collector had confirmed the order dated 25.11.1991 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in Tenancy Case No.152 of 1991.

Certain facts recorded in para-2 of the order impugned are that Kantaben Ravjibhai Patel (deceased) and predecessor in title of the appellant herein came into possession of the subject land by way of cultivation in the year 1975 from Mohmmadbhai Hussainbhai Vohrarespondent No.4.1 herein, who became owner of the land upon death of Shri Hasanbhai Fatehbhai Vohra, original owner of the land, in the year 1962. Later on, an agreement to sale dated 24.06.1983 came to be registered between deceased Kantaben and respondent No.4.1- Mohammadbhai Hussainbhai Vohra and admittedly, upon an application preferred by respondent No.4.1, Mamlatdar issued notice on 25-11-91 under Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. 3.1 As stated earlier, the appeal and revision before the respective authorities failed and the writ petition came to be rejected.

It is not in dispute that in paras-4 and 5, error of fact appears to be recorded with regard to nature of transfer of subject land whereby a mention is made about registered sale deed dated 24.06.1993 which is in fact an agreement to sale and that "It is also found that for sale of land in question, prior permission as envisaged under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act was not taken" and that "It is required to be noted that without prior permission of the authority, the land cannot be transferred or sold to other persons".

In view of above and the contention based on decisions relied on by learned Advocate for the appellant in the cases of State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors, reported in 1969 (10) GLR, 992 and Shambhuram Videshiram Morya Vs. State of Gujarat through Secretary (Appeals) & Ors., reported in 2012(1) GLR, 665 about exercise of power under Section 84-C has to be within reasonable time and even if the order is void, the same is to be so declared by a competent forum, we deem it just and proper to allow this appeal and remand the case to learned Single Judge for rendering decision on merits after perusal of record of the case as early as possible. The impugned oral judgment is quashed and set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly.