SCA/892020/2008 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8920 of 2008 ============================================ DINESHBHAI KALUBHAI LUKHI SELF & KARTA OF HUF & 4 - Petitioner(s) Versus MAMLATDAR & 4 - Respondent(s) ============================================ Appearance : MR AMIT V THAKKAR for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 5. MR HEMANT MACKWANA ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2,4 - 5. NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4. NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 3, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 5, ============================================ CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 22/10/2008 ORAL ORDER
1. Draft
amendment is allowed.
2. The
main grievance raised in this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is against the revenue authorities for not
posting and/or certifying the entries in the record of rights of the
agricultural lands pursuant to the order passed by the Mamlatdar and
ALT in this regard.
3. The
petitioners have made prayer for the directions to the respondents to
certify Entry No. 10008 dated 5.6.2008 and Entry No. 10012 dated
13.6.2008.
4. At
the outset reliance is placed by learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners on common oral order dated 12.8.2008 (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Akil Kureshi) in Special Civil Application No.6285/2008 and
allied matters. Learned advocate for the petitioners submit that
case of the petitioners is identical to the group of petitions
decided as per the above order and, therefore, the petitioners be
treated on par with those petitioners and directions issued in the
above order made also be issued in case of the petitioners.
5. Learned
AGP appearing for the respondent-revenue authority submits that the
order of Mamlatdar is subject to revision of higher authority as well
as subject to the Letters Patent Appeal which the Government has
already filed and also admitted by the Division Bench of this Court
against the decision of learned Single Judge dated 17-18-23/1/2007
passed in Special Civil Application No.9609/2006 where it was held
that it would be Mamlatdar who could decide the issue under Section
70-O of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for
short the Act ) and, therefore, it is submitted that the order
of the Mamlatdar had not become operative before which the present
petitioners have purchased the land from the original owner and
breached the conditions of Section 43 of the Act and the same is
subject to review that may be taken by appropriate authority.
6. Having
heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having
considered the facts arising in this group of petitions, the main
prayer made by the learned advocate for the petitioners for an early
conclusion of the issue of the order passed by the Mamlatdar &
ALT can be considered. It is not in dispute that the Mamlatdar and
ALT in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in Special Civil
Application No.9609 of 2006, has already adjudged the question of
validity of the lands being new tenure lands. Of course, the
Mamlatdar made his own order subject to revision by the higher
authority as well as subject to the outcome of the Letters Patent
Appeal that the Government may file. At this stage, if the Collector
finds that such order is required to be taken under revision, it is
always open for him to do so in accordance with law. However,
considering the urgency involved and long time since the petitioners
are awaiting clarity in this regard, it would be proper to provide
that such revision if initiated be concluded expeditiously.
7. Under
the circumstances, petition is disposed of by giving following
directions.
(1) The
Collector concerned shall take appropriate decision whether the
orders of the Mamlatdar and ALT need to be taken in revision within
four weeks from today.
(2) If
the Collector decides to take the orders of the Mamlatdar under
revision, such revision may be decided after hearing the concerned
persons expeditiously and preferably within three months from the
Collector taking such decision to take orders of the Mamlatdar under
revision.
(3) Such
an exercise shall be subject to further orders that the Division
Bench may pass in Letters Patent Appeal that has been filed by the
Government against the decision of the learned Single Judge in
Special Civil Application No.9609 of 2006 and connected matters.
8. With
these directions, petition is disposed of.
9. Direct
Service is permitted.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
//smita//