Back
2014 Supreme(Guj) 823
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI & R.P. DHOLARIA, JJ.
STATE OF GUJARAT & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
MAGANBHAI V DESAI & Ors. – Respondents
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1103 of 2014 in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3595 of 2013
Decided On : 23/09/2014
Advocate Appeared:
MR KASHYAP PUJARA, AGP for the Appellants No. 1-3
MR JM PATEL, ADVOCATE WITH MR AB MUNSHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondents No. 1-3.4 , 4-5.2 , 6-6.2 , 7-12
Headnote:
Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 2014 – Section 70A – Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Sections 43 and 84C –– Letters Patent – Clause 15 – Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment passed by Single Judge in Special Civil Application, whereby Single Judge allowed the petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 herein – Held, It clearly indicates that now question as to whether Mamlatdar has any power to remove restriction or not has become irrelevant and even if Mamlatdar has exercised power of conversion of land from New Tenure to Old Tenure and thereafter if transaction of sale has been taken place, power to regularise such sale by levying rupee one as penalty and in consideration of payment of such amount as may be determined by State Government, is vested with Collector in view of provisions of Section 70A – Single Judge has not committed any error while directing appellant herein to fix premium of subject land by treating subject land as that of new tenure within time frame –Order passed by Single Judge is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference by this Court – Appeal Dismissed
R.P. DHOLARIA, J.
1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 25.07.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3595 of 2013, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 herein.
2. As a question of law is involved, with the consent of the learned advocates for both the parties, the present appeal is taken up for final hearing today.
3. The short facts of the case are that agricultural land bearing survey No.27/1, admeasuring Hectares 1218 situated in the sim of village Ved, taluka Choryasi, District: Surat, was included in the Town Planning Scheme and has been given Final Plot No.26 which is owned by respondents No. 3 to 14 herein original petitioners No.3 to 12 and original respondents No. 4 and 5.
3.1. The ancestor of respondent Nos. 3 to 14 herein viz. Becharbhai Ichchhabhai was the tenant of the subject land and one Dinbai Maherbanji Hakim was the owner of the subject land. The name of Becharbhai Ichchhabhai was reflected in the revenue record since 192829 in the second rights column, and the names of the respondents No. 3 to 12 – original petitioners No. 3 to 12 and respondents No. 13 and 14 – original respondents No.4 and 5 (original tenants) were also entered in the revenue record vide Mutation Entry No.348 dated 15.12.1947. After the death of Becharbhai Ichchhabhai (the original tenant), the names of his widow Deviben and other heirs were entered in the revenue record. Accordingly, Deviben’s name continued to be shown in the second rights column as tenant.
3.2. Thereafter, Mutation Entry No.640 came to be made on 11.2.1964 on the basis of an order dated 21.10.1961 made by the Prant Officer in Tenancy Case No.12 of 1970, whereby the name of Keshavbhai, elder son of Becharbhai, came to be entered in the record of rights and the name of Deviben came to be deleted. Thereafter, by way of Mutation Entry No.698, along with name of Keshav Becharji, the names of Soma Becharjii and Chhotu Becharjii were also entered in the revenue record as they were sons of deceased Becharji Ichchhabhai. Subsequently, proceedings under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) came to be initiated by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Mamlatdar & ALT), and the purchase price came to be fixed in favour of the deceased tenant in the year 196667. The purchase price was paid by the tenants and a certificate under section 32M of the Act also came to be issued in favour of the heirs of the original tenant, pursuant to which, Mutation Entry No.1080 came to be made on 2.6.1999. Since there were circulars of the Government dated 18.06.1996 and 18.09.1997 for deciding the status of a permanent tenant, the respondent Nos. 3 to 14 – original petitioners No. 3 to 12 and original respondents No.4 and 5 made an application before the Mamlatdar and A.L.T under section 70(o) of the Tenancy Act. It appears that after making such application, since the Mamlatdar has not taken any decision, the original petitioners filed a writ petition before this court being Special Civil Application No.7329 of 2008, which came to be disposed of vide judgment and order dated 13.05.2008, whereby the Mamlatdar and A.L.T was directed to register the application of the original petitioners under section 70(o) of the Act and, thereafter, to decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight months from the date of receipt of the said order. Despite specific directions issued by this court, the said application has not been decided by the Mamlatdar till date.
3.3. It appears that one third party made an application before the Mamlatdar and ALT inter alia making allegation that the land has been transferred and the respondent Nos. 3 to 14 herein have submitted incorrect facts before the Mamlatdar and
