D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 15. 4. 1995 annexure-B passed by the Deputy Collector, order annexure-C dated 31. 7. 1996 passed in revision by the Collector and order annexure-E dated 17. 3. 1997 passed by the Secretary (Appeal), Revenue Department, Gujarat State on the ground that these orders are illegal and arbitrary. In the writ petition five questions had been posed for consideration by this court.

( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are as under:-

( 3 ) OUT of 5 acres 34 gunthas land of block No. 7 of village Tajpura, Dist. Kaira, the petitioner had purchased 1 acre 18 gunthas through a registered sale deed from its owners for Rs. 4200. 00 on 9-10/5/1974. The petitioner claims to be an Adivasi so also the owners of the land are said to be Adivasis. After purchasing the land the petitioner cultivated the same without any intervention and spent considerable amount in getting the land improved. After a period of 15 years of peaceful cultivation, the petitioner received show cause notice from the Deputy Collector calling upon him to show cause why the land in question should not be forfeited to the Government. Suitable reply to the show cause notice was given by the petitioner. Entry was made in favour of the petitioner which was certified, still, the petitioner was ready to pay 60 times the assessment for regularisation of the transaction. The transaction was between agriculturist and agriculturist. The mutation entry of the land as new tenure, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary. No enquiry was held for deciding whether the land was new tenure or old tenure. The Deputy Collector however ordered that the land in question be forfeited for breach of conditions. Therefore, against the order annexure-B the petitioner filed revision before the Collector, Godhra who also dismissed the petitioners revision through order Annexure-C. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Secretary (Appeal) who also dismissed the revision of the petitioner through annexure-E on 17. 4. 1997. Accordingly, this petition was filed. It is also mentioned that in view of the recent Circular issued by the Government the transaction should have been regularised by accepting 60 times the assessment from the petitioner. A copy of the Resolution has been annexed vide annexure-F.

( 4 ) THE petition was admitted. Still no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri A. J. Patel, learned A. G. P. Ms. Harsha Devani for the State and Shri Solanki for the previous owners were heard at length. The first contention of Shri A. J. Patel was that the petitioner is illiterate Adivasi, hence he could not find the distinction between new tenure and old tenure and since he is cultivating the land since May 1974, his possession may not be disturbed and the order forfeiting the land in favour of the Government may be quashed. Annexure-A is sale deed which negatives the contention that the petitioner is an adivasi. The sale deed on the other hand shows that the vendor as well as vendee petitioner are Hindu Rajput by religion. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be said to be adivasi. Ignorance of law is no excuse. Hence this plea is no ground for quashing the impugned orders.

( 5 ) THE next contention of Shri A. J Pwa wassatel that under the new circular and Resolution of the Government vide annexure-F breach if any can be regularised and the order for forfeiture can be quashed. Shri Patel vehemently argued that the Resolution annexure-F dated 11. 3. 1996 has to be read in letter as well as in spirit and if spirit of the Resolution is taken into consideration there can be no difficulty in regularising breach by directing the petitioner to pay 60 times of the land revenue as mentioned in condition No. 1 of this Resolution. However, the preamble of the Resolution itself indicates that it applies only in respect of lands granted for a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document