S. D. PANDIT, J, J.

( 1 ) ADMITTED. Mr. M. F. Mehta learned A. G. P. waives service of notice of admission. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 22. 2. 1996 by which he dismissed Special Civil Application No. 9952/95.

( 2 ) THE appellants-petitioners have purchased land of Survey Number 1069 admeasuring 27 gunthas situated in village Fagvel, Taluka Kapadwanj, District Kheda on 12. 11. 1990. Government of Gujarat took a suo motu action against the appellants under the provisions of Sec. 65 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) through its officer-the Deputy Collector, Kheda to resume the said land by passing an order on 14. 7. 1995. Therefore, the original petitioner have come before this Court to challenge the said order by filing SCA No. 9952 of 1995 under Art. 226of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 22. 2. 1996 rejected the petition on the ground that the petitioner ought to have gone in appeal before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. However, while passing the order the learned single Judge has observed in his order as under :"however, while dismissing the petition in the larger interest of justice it is observed that it will be open for the petitioners to submit memo of appeal before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahemdabad in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from today and the Tribunal will consider it in accordance with law. Needless to mention that this Court does not decide wether the appeal is maintainable or not. Keeping that point open with the aforesaid direction this petition is dismissed at the threshold. Notice discharged. The request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to extend the interim relief till 6. 3. 1996 is accepted with a clarification that in no case further time will be granted. "

( 3 ) THE petitioner have come before this Court having felt aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge. Admittedly the action taken against the petitioners was an action under Sec. 65 of the said Act. Sec. 65 of the said Act runs as under:"if it appears to the State Government that for any two consecutive years, any lands has remained uncultivated or the full and efficient use of the land has not been made for the purpose of agriculture, through the default of the holder or any other cause whatsoever not beyond his control the State Government may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, declare that the management of such land shall be assumed. Hie declaration so made shall be conclusive. [ (1a) The assumption of management of land under Sub-sec. (1) on the ground that the full and efficient use of the land has not been made for the purpose of agriculture shall be for such period as the State Government may, from time to time fix so, however, that such period shall not exceed ten years in the aggregate. (2) On the assumption of the management such land shall vest in the State government during the continuance of the management and the provision of chapter IV shall mutatis mutandis apply to the said land : provided that the manager may in suitable cases. give such land on lease at rent even equal to the amount of its assessment: provided further that, if the management of the land has been assumed under sub-sec. (1) on account of the default of the tenant, such tenant shall cease to have any right to privilege under Chapter II or III, as the case may be, in respect of such land, with effect from the date on which such management has been assumed. ]"if we take into consideration the provision of the above section then it would be quite clear that the State Government has exercised power under Sec. 65 of the said Act. Though the order of resumption is signed by the Deputy Collector, said action is taken by him under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document