Section-65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 does not empower the permanent confiscation of land, and the principles of natural justice must be upheld in administrative proceedings.

Abhilasha Kumari, J.

1. The present petition under Articles-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, challenging the order dated 25.06.1995, passed by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant, Ahmedabad, whereby the land of the petitioners, bearing Survey No. 200/1, admeasuring 1821 sq.mtrs., situated at Village Kali, Taluka Daskroi, Ahmedabad, has been confiscated, in exercise of power under Section-65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("the Act", for short).

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, according to the petitioners, the above-mentioned agricultural land belongs to them and they are the owners and occupants thereof. Village Form No. 7/12 reflects the ownership and occupancy of the petitioners upto the time when revenue entry No. 1544 was posted on 29.08.1998 and certified on 02.01.1999. As per this entry the land stands forfeited to the State Government, by the impugned order of the Deputy Collector, on the ground that it remained uncultivated during the years from 1984-1985 to 1990-1991. The Deputy Collector issued a notice dated 08.06.1994 to the predecessors-in-title of the present petitioners. In the said notice, it is stated that as the land has remained uncultivated during the years mentioned hereinabove, an explanation be rendered why it should not be confiscated to the State Government in exercise of power under Section-65 of the Act. The petitioners contested the notice and denied the assertion that there had been no agricultural activities over the land, during the relevant periods of time. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they had not been granted an opportunity to controvert the Inquiry Report prepared on the basis of a Panchnama, that the land had remained fallow. The submissions of the petitioners did not find favour with the Deputy Collector, who passed the impugned order, confiscating the land under Section-65 of the Act.

3. It is relevant to note that Section-65 of the Act now stands deleted from the statute book by an amendment, vide Government Notification dated 08.07.2009. Of equal relevance and significance is the fact that the land in question has been included in the Kali-Chenpur Town Planning Scheme No. 19 and has been given Final Plot No. 59, resulting in a change in the area from 1821 sq.mtrs. to 1275 sq.mtrs. A notice to this effect has been issued by Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority dated 01.02.2000.

4. In the above factual background, Ms. Trusha K. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners, has made detailed submissions, which are briefly reflected hereinbelow.

4.1 It is submitted that under Section-65 of the Act, the Deputy Collector has no power to confiscate the land but only to assume the management of the land, and that too for a maximum period of ten years. By virtue of the amendment in the Act by a Notification dated 08.07.2009, Section-65 has been deleted. The effect of the deletion is that there is no machinery available with the Deputy Collector to manage the land for ten years, therefore, the land is required to be surrendered back to the petitioners, who are the original owners.

4.2 It is further submitted that the Deputy Collector, while passing the impugned order, has relied upon a Panchnama, which is an ex-parte one. The said Panchnama has been drawn behind the backs of the petitioners, who were not even given a copy of it. Such action violates the principles of natural justice.

4.3 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order dated 25.06.1995 is an illegal one, having been passed beyond the jurisdiction vested in the Deputy Collector vide Section-65, therefore, there is no question of delay in challenging an inherently illegal order.

4.4 That the notice issued to the petitioners before the passing of the order is also bad in law as it speaks of confiscation of the land, which cannot be done under Section-65. Besides, the notice has been collectively sent to three