Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/22991/2007 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 22991 of 2007
=========================================================
CHAUHAN
NATHAJI PUNJAJI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
COLLECTOR
& 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JV JAPEE for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4.
MR JK SHAH, AGP for Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 14/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondent authorities to
take appropriate steps to record entry in the village records as per
order passed by Mamlatdar and ALT in Tenancy Case No.2080/1983.
Order referred to is one dated 15.4.1986 by which the Mamlatdar in a
proceeding under Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act (?Sthe Act?? for short) recorded that original tenant
and the person presently in possession of land have agreed to
restore the land in original position. He accordingly directed that
same may be done within three months.
Grievance
of the petitioner is that despite this order of Mamlatdar, Talati
has not made corresponding entry in the revenue records for the land
in question.
Request
of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the parties did
not act according to their assurance given before the Mamlatdar.
Thus the reason for dropping 84-C proceeding with respect to land in
question did not materialise. Ideally, therefore, there should have
been fresh proceedings under Section 84-C seeking summary eviction
of the occupant of land and taking further steps to ensure that land
appropriately vests in the Government on account of the breach
committed by the tenants. This was unfortunately not done. More than
20 years thereafter, the petitioner has approached the Court and
urged that the authorities should make an entry in terms of order of
Mamlatdar. Quite apart from gross delay and mala fide purpose of
this petition, even in legal terms such a request cannot be
accepted. The parties not having acted according to the assurance
held out before the Mamlatdar, cannot seek capital out of it.
Under
the circumstances, petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top