IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2207 of 1997
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.R.JAIN
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
J
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement? No
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? No
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil
Judge?No
————————————————————–
V K FARMING CO OPERATIVE KHETISAMUDAYIK MANDALI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
————————————————————–
Appearance:
MRS KETTY A MEHTA for Petitioner
MS HARSHA DEVANI ASSTT. GOVT. PLEADER for
Respondents.
————————————————————–
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.R.JAIN
Date of decision: 05/05/97
ORAL JUDGEMENT
The petitioner – society had purchased lands by
registered sale deeds and appropriate entries in revenue
records were made in the name of the petitioner society.
However, the respondent – authority raising disputes
under S.2 (2) and 2 (6) read with S. 63 of The Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act initiated proceedings
under Section 84-(C) of the Act and resumed the lands to
the Government. As a consequence thereof, entries made
in favour of the petitioner were also reversed and the
lands in question were mutated in the name of the
Government. Aggrieved by the order passed by the
respondents under Section 84-(C) of the Act, the
petitioner – society preferred Revision Applications
Nos.174 of 1995 to 178 of 1995 and others before the
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal
vide order Annexure-A dated 14.8.1995 passed in Revision
Application No.TEN/BS.17 of 1995, Annexure-B dated
3.11.1995 in Revision Application No.174 of 1995 to 178
of 1995 and Annexure-C dated 3.11.1995 in Revision
Application No.81 of 1995 to 123 of 1995 reversed the
order passed by the authority below. Despite these
judgments operating in favour of the petitioner, mutation
entries have not been made in favour of petitioners
therefore the petitioner has filed this petition for
appropriate relief.
2.At the initial stage it was contended by the
Government that as challenge to the order was under
contemplation hence are not giving effect. Despite this
fact if effect is given and ultimately Government
succeeds may give rise to multiplicity of litigation.
But during the course of arguments, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms. Devani has made a statement that
the Government has decided not to challenge the orders
referred to above and has issued appropriate directions
to the concerned authority to give effect and take all
consequential steps. In support of her statement, she
has produced xerox copes of letters dated 28.4.1997
written by the Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat
to the Collector, District Surat. In view of these
letters, the petition is required to be allowed since the
only prayer by the petitioner is to issue appropriate
directions against the Government to make necessary
entries in the revenue record.
3.In the result, the petition is allowed.
Respondents Nos.2 to 4 are hereby directed to make
necessary etries showing the name of the petitioner in
all the village forms and revenue record by reversing the
entries made in favour of the State of Gujarat pursuant
to the order dated 16.5.1995 passed by the Deputy
Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat. The respondents are
directed to make necessary entries within two weeks from
the date of receipt of writ from this court. Xerox
copies of letters referred to above produced by learned
A.G.P. be taken on record. Rule is made absolute
accordingly.
$$$$$$$$$$