Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Dhanaji Khokhaji & Others – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 2998 of 2015 With R/Special Civil Application No. 3037 of 2015
Decided on : 12-02-2021
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 32P(8) - Revisional powers of Collector - Competent Authority - Land Issue - Possession of land in question - Orders passed by Gujarat Land Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application and Revision Application preferred by State Government before GRT challenging order passed by Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) in respect of land.
Finding of the Court: Provisions of section 76A of Act, 1948 it is clear that Deputy Collector could not have invoked suo motu jurisdiction after one year from date of passing of any order passed by Mamlatdar. In such circumstances, when Deputy Collector has exercised jurisdiction under section 76A of Act, 1948, it is absolutely time barred and only on this ground said orders ought to have been quashed and set aside by GRT. However, GRT has not considered this aspect of matter and has proceeded to consider merits of matter. GRT while upholding the order passed by Deputy Collector has arrived at findings only on basis of assumption. GRT has recorded that it appears from record that original owners were in possession and occupation of land in question prior to 1965 without there being any cogent evidence in support thereof. GRT could not have confirmed orders passed by Deputy Collector only on basis of such assumption - Competent authority namely, Collector exercising powers under section 32P(8) is therefore directed to consider application which may be filed by respondent no.2 in accordance with law
Result: Petitions are allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Jigar Patel, learned advocate Mr. Vijal Desai, learned advocate Ms. Trusha Patel, learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Patel for learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the respective respondents in the respective petitions through video conference.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Jigar Patel, learned advocate Ms. Trusha Patel, learned advocate Mr.S.P. Majmudar waives service of notice of rule for the respective respondents.
3. Having regard to the controversy involved in these petitions, which is in a very narrow compass with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today.
4. Both the petitions are filed by the State of Gujarat challenging the orders dated 12.3.2013 passed by the Gujarat Land Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad (For short “the GRT”) in Revision Application No.490/1996 and Revision Application No. 522/1996 preferred by the State Government before the GRT challenging the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) Ahmedabad in respect of land situated at Survey No.369/1, block no. 483 admeasuring 5767 sq. mtrs. at village Bhadaj, Taluka Dascroi, District Ahmedabad and land situated at Survey No.454, block no. 469 admeasuring 7891 sq. mtrs at village Bhadaj, Taluka Dascroi, District Ahmedabad. The Deputy Collector passed an order dated 27.7.1993 with respect to land situated at Survey no. 369/1 by removing the restriction under section 32P(8) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (For short “the Act, 1948”) which was placed by the Mamlatdar vide order dated 29.7.1967 reflected in Village Form No.6 as per Entry No. 1775 dated 15.8.1967. The Deputy Collector by order dated 26.7.1993 passed a similar order in Revision Case No.35/1993 in respect of land situated at Survey No.454 by removing the restriction under section 32P(8) of the Act, 1948 as per the order passed by the Mamlatdar on 21.8.1968 which is reflected in the revenue record as per Entry No.22 in Village Form No.6. The Deputy Collector purportedly exercised suo motu powers in the year 1993 under section 76A of the Act, 1948 on the ground that both the parcels of land were in possession of the original owners prior to 29.12.1965, the cutoff date which came to be inserted and subsections (6) to (11) of section 32P were amended by Entry No. 36 of the Act 1965 and therefore, restriction imposed by the Mamlatdar in the year 1968 under section 32P(8) of the Act which provides that no land of the description referred to in subsection(7) shall be transferred by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or assignment or partitioned without the previous sanction of the Collector and except on payment of such amount as the State Government may by general or special order determine, cannot be applied and accordingly, such restriction was ordered to be removed.
5. It appears that based upon such order, respondent no.2 namely, Dipak Govindbhai Dalwadi executed a sale deed to purchase both the parcels of land.
6. The State Government challenged both the orders passed by the Deputy Collector with respect to both the parcels of land by preferring Revision Application No.490/1996 and Revision Application No. 522/1996 before the GRT. The GRT by separate orders dated 12.3.2013 dismissed both the revision applications confirming the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and reiterating that the original owners were in possession prior to 29.12.1965 as per the revenue records and, therefore, restriction placed by Mamlatdar in the year 1967/1968 are required to be removed so that the original owners can sell the land without obtaining sanction or payment of premium as may be determined by the Collector as per section 32P(8) of the Act, 1948.
7. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by GRT, the State Government has preferred both the petitions.
8. Learned AGP Mr. Antani appearing for the petiti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
