Decided in Favour of :
Respondent
Petition Dismissed

R.M. Doshit, J.—The petitioners, State of Gujarat and the Collector, Rajkoat have preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 17.02.1995 made by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, “the Tribunal”) in Revision Application No. TEN. B.R. 49/1992. The subject-matter of dispute is the transfer of land bearing Survey No.556 admeasuring 15-Acres-11-Gunthas situated at village Thanagalol, Taluka Jetpur, District Rajkot made in favour of the respondents herein. According to the State Government, the said transfer was made in contravention of the provisions of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Ordinance”).

2. On 6.03.1986, by two different registered sale deeds the respondents purchased the aforesaid land Survey No.556 admeasuring 15-Acres-11-Gunthas from the owners of the land one Santokben Vashram and others. Pursuant to the said transfer the revenue entries nos.1787 and 1788 came to be made in the village form no.6 on 21.4.1986 by the Talati-cum-Mantri, Thanagalol. The concerned Circle Officer, by endorsement made on 25.7.1986, refused to certify the said entry. According to the Circle Officer, the purchasers were not the agriculturists. He also instructed to issue notice upon the parties. It appears that pursuant to the said endorsement the Mamlatdar, Jetpur submitted his report that the purchasers had not produced any evidence of their being the agriculturists. Pursuant to the said report, the Deputy Collector, Gondal, in exercise of power of suo motu revision, issued notice upon the vendors and the purchasers to show-cause why the said transfer made in contravention of Section 54 of the Ordinance be not cancelled. After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, by order dated 23.07.1990, the Deputy Collector held that the said transfer was in contravention of Section 54 of the Ordinance and Rule 18 and that the purchasers be evicted from the said land. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the District Collector by his order dated 29th October, 1992. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents preferred the above referred Revision Application No. 49/1992 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the power of suo motu revision was not exercised by the Deputy Collector within reasonable time. In the result, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the Revision Application and to set aside the orders of the authorities below. Therefore, the present petition.

3. Learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi has appeared for the petitioner - State Government. He has submitted that the Ordinance was passed by the State Government. The provisions contained in the Ordinance, therefore, should apply to the lands situated within the State and to the landlords and tenants in respect of such land. He has relied upon the judgments of the Bombay High Court in the matters of Tukaram Savalaram Panasare vs. Narayan Balkrishna Dolas [54 BLR 88] and of Chhanubhai Karansang vs. Sardul Mansang [58 BLR 463]. He has also relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Poppatlal Shah, Partner of Messrs. Indo Malayan Trading Co. vs. The State of Madras, represented by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sowcarpet, Madras, AIR 1953 SC 274 and of Tatoba Bhau Savagave (D) by L.Rs. and Another vs. Vasantrao Dhindiraj Deshpande and Others, AIR 2001 SC 4029.

4. In the matter of Tukaram Savalaram Panasare (Supra), the Hon’ble Court was concerned with the expression ‘land’ appearing in the Bombay Agricultural Debtors’ Relief Act. The Court speaking through Mr. M.C. Chagla, Chief Justice held that, “...Therefore relief was to be given not merely to a debtor in the Province of Bombay, but to an agricultural debtor in the Province of Bombay, and only that debtor would be an agricultural debtor who cultivated land in the Province of Bombay.” The Court reasoned