Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5694/1998 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5694 of 1998
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
THAKOR
NARANSINGH FATEHSINGH & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
LR POOJARI, AGP for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 03/02/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Though
served, nobody appears for the respondents.
[2]. By
this petition, the applicant – State of Gujarat has prayed for
appropriate order to quash and set aside the order dated 01.02.1996
passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision
Application No.TEN/BA/226 of 1995 by which Gujarat Revenue Tribunal
allowed the revision application preferred by the respondents herein.
[3]. Facts
of the case are as under :-
[3.1]. Respondents
herein were holding together land of Acre 49 and 39 Gunthas. The
respondents herein did not fill Form No.2 declaring their
agricultural land holding as required under the Gujarat Agricultural
Land Ceiling Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) and
therefore, they were find Rs.100/- which was paid by them on
08.02.1993 and the respondents were also directed to fill in
requisite form along with the affidavit regarding their agricultural
land holding. However, they did not fill the form. Thus, the
applicant authority felt that the respondents herein were holding
land in excess of the ceiling area and therefore, inquiry under
section 21 of the Act was initiated by the Additional Mamlatdar &
ALT , Chhotaudepur being Ceiling Case No.2 of 1990 and he passed
order dated 10.12.1993 whereby he withdrew the notice issued under
section 20(2) of the Act and closed the inquiry. The said order was
taken in suo mou revision by the Deputy Collector, Chhotaudepur under
section 37 of the Act being Ceiling Revision Case No.2 of 1994 and
passed order dated 20.02.1995 declaring 3 Acre 07 Gunthas to be
surplus land in the holding of the respondents. Being aggrieved by
the said order, respondents herein preferred Revision Application
No.TEN/BA/226 of 1995 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad.
After hearing both the parties, by order dated 01.02.1996, Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad allowed the said revision and quashed and
set aside the order dated 20.02.1995 passed by the Deputy Collector,
Chhotaudepur in Ceiling Revision Case No.2 of 1994. Being aggrieved
by the said order, present petition is filed by the applicant herein
– State of Gujarat.
[4]. Mr.L.R.Poojari,
learned AGP appearing on behalf of the applicant herein – State
of Gujarat invited attention of this Court to order dated 10.12.1993
passed by the Additional Mamlatdar & ALT, Chhtaudepur in Ceiling
Case No.2 of 1990; order dated 20.02.1995 passed by the Deputy
Collector, Chhotaudepur in Ceiling Revision Case No.2 of 1994 and
order dated 01.02.1996 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal,
Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.TEN/BA/226 of 1995. It is
submitted by Mr.Poojari, learned AGP that Deputy Collector has
rightly exercised his suo moto revisional power under section 37 of
the Act. The Deputy Collector has passed the order after
appreciating the evidence on record of the case and also after
examining the additional evidence. It is further submitted that the
Tribunal without considering this aspect has erred in quashing and
setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector. It is also
submitted that order passed by Mamlatdar and ALT closing the case by
giving benefit of section 18 of the Act was not in consistence with
the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that impugned
order dated 01.02.1996 passed by the Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad is
illegal and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. By
making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present
petition.
[5]. This
Court has gone through the order dated 10.12.1993 passed by the
Additional Mamlatdar & ALT, Chhtaudepur in Ceiling Case No.2 of
1990; order dated 20.02.1995 passed by the Deputy Collector,
Chhotaudepur in Ceiling Revision Case No.2 of 1994 and order dated
01.02.1996 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in
Revision Application No.TEN/BA/226 of 1995. It is observed by the
Tribunal in its order that after considering the evidence on record,
it appears that Deputy Collector has collected evidence in suo moto
proceedings by recording evidence of Mulendrasingh Naransingh Chauhan
who is the power of attorney holder of respondents herein, which he
ought not to have done. It is further observed by the Tribunal that
Mamlatdar and ALT has withdrawn the notice issued against the present
respondents on different ground but the respondents herein are
entitled to additional 2/5th of Unit as on 01.04.1976 and
therefore, there is no question of any land remaining excess. It is
observed by the Mamlatdar in its order dated 10.12.1993 that 3 Acre
and 7 Gunthas excess land was possessed by the respondents herein.
It is also observed by the Mamlatdar in its order dated 10.12.1993
that another piece of land in Survey No.8 being 1 Acre and 17 which
was in the name of the respondents herein was taken over by the
Government by entry No.277 dated 04.08.1978 and if this land is
adjusted, only 1 Acre and 30 Gunthas of land is required to be
released. It is also observed by the Mamlatdar in its order dated
10.12.1993 that taking into consideration small piece of land, it
cannot be used for public purpose and therefore, Mamlatdar has held
that same so is not required to be declared as excess under the
Ceiling Act and dropped the proceedings.
[6]. In
opinion of this Court, after taking into consideration evidence on
record, Mamlatdar has rightly passed the order and Deputy Collector
was not required to interfere with the order passed by the Mamlatdar.
The Tribunal has not committed any error in passing order dated
01.02.1996 in Revision Application No.TEN/BA/226 of 1995 and rightly
quashed and set aside the order dated 20.02.1995 passed by the Deputy
Collector, Chhotaudpur in Ceiling Revision Case No.2 of 1994.
[7]. For
the reasons stated above, this petition requires to be dismissed and
accordingly it is dismissed. Rule discharged.
[M.D.Shah,
J.]
satish
Top