( 1 ) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 3134 of 2001 when came up for final hearing, since Special Civil Application No. 13380 of 2006 was also arising on the same subject matter, both are heard finally by this Court.

( 2 ) THE short facts are as under: the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 3134 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the original owner/seller" for the sake of convenience) were holding the agricultural land at village Shela, Taluka Sanand, Dist. Ahmedabad. It appears that all the lands held by Joitaram Patel was given one block and the total block comprised of 78,914 sq. mtrs. out of the total area of the block. It appears that the land ad-measuring 18,004 sq. mtrs. was sold by the seller to one Ibrahimbhai vide Registered Sale Deed dated 10. 04. 1980. No permission was obtained of the authority under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation Act,1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Thereafter, on 06. 07. 1981, the remaining land admeasuring 60910 sq. mtrs. was sold by Registered Sale Deed on 06. 07. 1981 by the seller to respondent Nos. 1 and 3 of Special Civil Application 3134 of 2001 (hereinafter referred as the purchaser of the land in question ). Even for the sale dated 06. 07. 1981, no permission was obtained of the competent authority under the Act. It appears that the entry came to be recorded of both the aforesaid Sale Deeds dated 10. 04. 1980 and 06. 07. 1981 based on the said Registered Sale Deed in the revenue record. However thereafter, it appears that in the year 1983, the Deputy Collector initiated the proceedings qua the Sale Deed dated 06. 07. 1981 by seller to the purchaser under the provisions of the Act on the ground that the permission of the competent authority was not obtained for the transfer of the land. It appears that in the meantime, on 03. 08. 1982, the purchaser of the land applied for converting the land for non-agricultural use and such permission came to be granted by Taluka Development Officer, Sanand. Thereafter, on 26. 09. 1983, in the proceedings under the Act, the Deputy Collector cancelled the Entry No. 1018 dated 11. 08. 1982 based on the Registered Sale Deed and declared the sale as void and further directed imposition of fine to the seller of Rs. 250/- failing which, the amount of fine to be recovered as arrears of the land revenue and also declared for restoration of the original status of the land. It appears that the order of the Deputy Collector was challenged by the purchaser by preferring appeal before the State Government and the State Government vide order dated 23. 04. 1984, directed for remand of the matter by setting aside the order of the Deputy Collector. The matter was thereafter, further considered by the Deputy Collector and on 30. 09. 1986, the order came to be passed by the Deputy Collector, whereby the transfer was set aside and the fine of Rs. 100/- was imposed upon the seller failing which, the amount to be recovered as arrears of the land revenue and it was also declared that the possession of the purchaser over the disputed land is illegal and therefore, the summary eviction was ordered against the purchaser. It was also directed to intimate the copy of the order to the parties and Talati was directed to keep on record the copy of the order. It deserves to be recorded that the copy of the order was forwarded to the Mamlatdar, Sanand, with the direction that after the expiry of the period of appeal, the fine be recovered from the seller and the possession be taken back from the purchaser and the record be restored to the original position. It appears that the purchaser challenged the order of the Deputy Collector under the Act before the State Government by preferring revision and the State Government passed the order on 20. 04. 1990, whereby, the revision was dismissed and so far as the restoration of the original status of the land is concerned, it was ordered that the land be forfeited to the State Government.

( 3 ) IT appears that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document