AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
[A] To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, directions and/or orders quashing and setting aside the order in so far as it relates to remand directing the Mamlatdar to afford opportunity for restoration of the land to its original position and be further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order in so far as it relates to holding the transaction of sale of land by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the Petitioner No. 1 invalid and the vesting of the land to the Government free from all encumbrances.
[B] To grant stay of the operation of the impugned order Annexure C during the pendency and final disposal of the petition.
[C] To order to maintain status-quo by the parties to this petition as to land block No. 1013 (S. No. 1264) situated at Jotana Taluka & Dist. Mehsana, during the pendency and final disposal of the petition.
[D], (E) & (F)....
The short facts of the case are that the Petitioner had purchased land bearing Block No. 1013 (Old Survey No. 1264) admeasuring H.0-55-64 by registered sale deed dated 26.07.1978 from respondent No. 1. Pursuant the said sale deed Entry No. 565/1958 came to be posted in Village Form No. 6 on 27.09.1978. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar and ALT on the basis of the report submitted by RTS team, initiated proceedings u/s 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act ["the Act" for short] being Tenancy Case No. Jotana/63-84-C-35/84. The Mamlatdar and ALT vide order dated 30.09.1988 held that as the sale transaction is invalid, the land in question shall vest in the Government. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner preferred Appeal No. 35/1988 before the Deputy Collector, Mehsana. The Deputy Collector vide order dated 26.11.1990 dismissed the said appeal.
2.1. Against the said order, the Petitioner preferred Revision Application No. 115/1991 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the application. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the order directing the Mamlatdar to initiate further proceedings u/s 84C of the Act, has approached this Court by way of this petition.
Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. From the record it appears that the Mamlatdar and ALT came to know from the report of the RTS team about the sale transaction between the Petitioner and respondent No. 1, and on inquiry having found that the Petitioner was not an agriculturist and had not obtained prior permission from the competent authority u/s 63 of the Act, the Mamlatdar and ALT held that there is violation of the provisions of law in the sale transaction of the land in question between the Petitioner and respondent No. 1, Therefore, the concerned authority had rightly initiated the proceedings u/s 84C of the Act. Apart from that authority concerned had not given any opportunity to the respective parties to the transaction to restore the land to its original position, as required under the law.
Looking to the facts of the case, in my opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality or impropriety while partly allowing the revision application filed by the Petitioner. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by the Tribunal in the impugned order and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any, stands vacated.