(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

This Appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 7th October 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.13046 of 2010, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition, confirming the order dated 17th July 2010 passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad, arising from the order of the Collector, Bharuch dated 4th December 2008.

2. Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this Appeal can be summarised as under :

1. The appellant herein purchased a parcel of agricultural land bearing Block No.565 situated at village Shuklatirth, Taluka and District Bharuch jointly with one Shri Babubhai Keshram Morya by way of a registered sale deed on 8th June 1993 after payment of premium and permission from the Deputy Collector, Bharuch.

2. It appears that an entry bearing No.5650 was mutated in the record of rights in the village form nos.6 and 7/12 on 23rd June 1993. The appellant and the co-owner Babubhai are cultivating the said land and are in possession of the said land. One another entry was also mutated in the record of rights in the names of the appellant and the co-owner Babubhai.

3. It appears that a resident of the same village, having no right, title or interest in the said land, preferred an application addressed to respondent no.2 Collector stating that the appellant herein and the co-owner Babubhai are not the agriculturists and could not have purchased the agricultural land without a valid permission of the authorities and the same is in breach of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Tenancy Act'). It is also alleged against the appellant herein that he is not a resident of Gujarat but he hails from Uttar Pradesh and is an agricultural labourer. It is also the case of the respondents against the appellant herein that even if a person is an agriculturist in another State, such person cannot buy agricultural land within the State of Gujarat without a valid permission and the transaction would be hit by Section 63 of the Tenancy Act.

4. It appears that the transaction of 1993 and the entries mutated in the record of rights way back in the year 1993 came to be taken up in suo motu revision after a period of almost about 15 years by the Deputy Collector, Bharuch vide notice dated 10th October 2007. The Collector, Bharuch ordered that proceedings under Section 84-C must be initiated against the appellant in so far as land bearing Block no.565 is concerned. Pursuant to the order dated 4th December 2008 passed by the Collector, Bharuch, respondent no.3, Mamlatdar, Bharuch initiated proceedings under Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act. It also deserves to be noted that Entry No.5650 mutated in the record of rights also came to be 1st cancelled along with Entry No.5597 mutated on December 1992.

5. It appears that the action of the Collector and the Mamlatdar and the orders passed by them came to be challenged before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department by filing Revision Application No.3 of 2009, which also came to be rejected vide order dated 9th July 2010.

6. It is at that stage that the appellant herein preferred Special Civil Application No.13046 of 2010 and challenged the orders passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department and the Collector, Bharuch.

7. The learned Single Judge took the view that merely because the appellant is engaged in agricultural work, he cannot be termed as an “agriculturist” as defined under the Tenancy Act. The learned Single Judge also took the view that originally the transaction is from an agricultural land to non-agricultural land and, therefore, it is illegal and can be taken up in suo motu review at any point of time. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rejected the petition and refused to grant any relief to the appellant. The appellant is, therefore, here before us in Appeal.

3. We have heard learned advocate Ms.Sonal D.Vy