Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal vs State of Gujarat and Others

Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for the prayer inter alia the impugned order in Tenancy Case No. 6 of 1998 passed by the Additional Collector Vadodara dated 19.2.1999 at Annexure-D may be quashed and set aside on the grounds stated in the memo of petition. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.M. Bhatt for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. Mr. Manan Maheta.

Learned advocate Mr. P.M. Bhatt referred to the papers and submitted that the petitioner has purchased the land in question situated at Village Fajalpur, District Vadodara by a registered sale deed from the owners in around June to October 1997 and the entries are also made. Thereafter, the development permission has also been granted u/s 29 of the Town Planning Act. However the Collector in purported exercise of power u/s 65 issued a show cause notice as to why the NA for the management of the land in question should not be taken for not using the land in question for 2 years resulting in passing the impugned order which has been assailed in the present petition.

Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt submitted that the order of the Collector dated 19.2.1999 taking away the management of the land in question is without jurisdiction, in view of the settled legal position by the judicial pronouncement of the High Court in judgment reported in New Kamalkunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, and Babubhai M. Patel and Another Vs. State of Gujarat, He submitted that the Tenancy Act has been amended vide Government notification dated 8.7.2009 by which provision of Sections 65, 65-A and 65-AA have been deleted. He, therefore, submitted that in view of this amendment there is no machinery available to manage the land for 10 years after taking over the management and therefore, the present petition may be allowed. He also submitted that the land could not be utilised for the reason stated and it was only for two years which cannot be said to be unjustified.

Learned A.G.P. referred to the papers and submitted that the land in question was not utilised. The decision has been taken. He submitted that he clearly stated that the amendment may be considered.

In view of these rival submissions and having regard to the background of the facts as discussed above and the fact that the Tenancy Act has been amended by Government notification dated 8.7.2009 by which the provisions of Section 65 has been deleted, there would not be any justification to sustain the order in light of the aforesaid two judgments of the Hon''ble Division Bench. It is required to be mentioned that as observed in the judgment of the Hon''ble Division Bench, as there is no machinery to manage the land and referred the land to the land owner subsequently, the whole exercise would be futile. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. Prayer in terms of para 14(A) is granted. The impugned order in Tenancy Case No. 6 of 1998 at Annexure-D dated 19.2.1999 passed by the Additional Collector, Vadodara, handing over the possession of the land in question is hereby quashed and set aside. It is also directed that since the possession has been taken over, it would be handed over back to the petitioner within a period of 10 weeks without fail. Rule is made absolute.