Point of Law: It is now well-settled principles of law that non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of a provision of law does not invalidate an order in the event it is found that a power therefore exists

JUDGMENT :

1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner reads as under:

“27 (A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued upon the learned Mamlatdar and ALT, Kalol to drop the impugned show cause notice dated 10.2020 (undated) being Ganot Case / Santej 84C/ 02/2020 issued under Form22, Rule 50 issued under the provision of Section 84(B)(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948;”

2. Facts in brief are as under:

2.1 With a view to put up residential units for its members, the petitioner purchased a parcel of land being Survey No. 1343 at Santej. The land was purchased in 198283. The case of the petitioner is that there was no breach of Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (for short ' the Tenancy Act') by virtue of Section 64A of the Act. The subject land was sold by the vendors by a registered sale deed and mutation entries were posted in favour of the petitioner society which are subject matters of challenge in this Court where there is interim relief in favour of the vendors.

2.2 The case of the petitioner is that in proceedings for breach of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act which were initiated invoking provision of Section 84C of the Act, the Mamltadar held against the petitioner. On a challenge to the order, the Deputy Collector, by his order dated 09.04.1999 set aside the order of the Mamltadar in favour of the petitioner, by virtue of Section 64A of the Tenancy Act. The challenge to the order at the hands of the vendors is pending at the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The challenge is made after 19 years and is pending. Those proceedings under Section 84C were in respect of Block Nos. 1339, 1114, 1109, 1110, 1123, 1254, 1261 and 1341. The present parcel of land being block No. 1343 was not included. Once 84C proceedings for other blocks are concluded in favour of the person, such proceeding for another parcel cannot be reinitiated once again under the garb of missing out one parcel of land.

3. Mr.Mehul Shah, learned Senior Advocate for Mr.Vimal Purohit, would therefore submit that the show cause notice dated / 10/2020 is bad. He would further factually point out that since the Deputy Collector recommended inquiry for breach of the provisions of Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, (for short 'the Land Ceiling Act') such proceedings were under challenge and even on such count the chapter under the Land Ceiling Act has attained finality as the order of the GRT is not challenged by the State.

3.1 On the aspect of the proceedings on the civil side, the petitioner's case is that 44 suits filed before the civil court with regard to challenge to the sale deeds failed as the applications of the petitioner society under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure were entertained and the suits were dismissed. Mr.Mehul Shah, learned Senior Advocate, would invite the attention of the court to the table at page 69 of the paper book and the order of the High Court dated 13.07.2017 (page 98) in Civil Application for condonation of delay in second appeal, wherein, this Court dismissed the delay condonation application in 7 appeals and the order was confirmed as SLPs before the Supreme Court were dismissed.

3.2 According to Mr.Mehul Shah, learned Senior Advocate, since the vendors failed at all stages, the present show cause notice has been issued in collusion by them with the Mamlatdar, under Section 84B of the Tenancy Act. The notice is without jurisdiction. The provision of Section 84B is applicable only to transactions entered into between 15.06.1955 and 21.07.1956, whereas the present sale took place in the year 1982. The notice is issued after 35 years after registered sale deed of 198384. The show cause notice is therefore grossly belated. In support of his submissio