Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
MANSUKHBHAI HARIDAS KANABAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6567 of 2020
Decided On : 18-08-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 - Section-54, 75, (A)(1)(2) - Agriculturist - Registered Sale-Deed - Petitioner nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 had purchased from petitioner no.5 by way of sale-deed - Same had been mutated in revenue record vide Entry No.831 - Thereafter, Collector, in exercise of suo motu power issued show cause notice to petitioner nos.1 to 5 directing petitioners to furnish proof of their being agriculturist.
Finding of the Court:
Court has taken into consideration registered sale deed - Mutation entry being Mutation Entry in Village Form No.6 is produced along with record, which refers to registered sale-deed and same is certified - Collector appears to have set aside revenue entry of year, but, in fact, is questioned status of agriculturist, which father of petitioners was holding in year and after disposing of an agricultural land in year and having purchased agricultural land in year has in fact decision of revenue authority which was taken way back in year - According to this Court, in view of facts and chronology indicating transactions by petitioners from time to time in agricultural land certified by revenue authorities, impugned order is grossly delayed and there does not appear to be any reasonable explanation for such delay - Therefore, status of petitioners are agriculturist cannot be disturbed and that too belatedly.
Result : Ordered accordingly
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Ms.Nisha Thakore, learned AGP waives service of rule for the respondents-State.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking directions for quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.02.2020, passed by the S.S.R.D. in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/Amal/87/2019, which confirms the order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the Collector in Suo-Motu proceedings numbered as RTS Nondh Revision No.58/2018. It is further prayed to direct the Mamlatdar, Tal:Bagasara, Dist:Amreli to restore the Entry Nos.718, 831 and 1251 in the revenue record.
3. It is submitted that petitioner nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 had purchased land bearing Survey No.52/1 paikee 3 paikee 2 situated at Jethiyavadar, Tal:Bagasara, Dist:Amreli admeasuring 0-41-48 Hec. Are. Sq.Mtrs. from the petitioner no.5 on 09.03.2005 by way of sale-deed No.31/2005. The same had been mutated in the revenue record on 21.06.2007 vide Entry No.831. Thereafter, the Collector, Amreli, in exercise of suo motu power issued show cause notice dated 25.02.2019 to the petitioner nos.1 to 5 directing the petitioners to furnish the proof of their being agriculturist.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the suomotu proceedings initiated against the petitioners are after a lapse of 12 years and hence, the Collector had lost the jurisdiction, as action is initiated after an unreasonable period.
5. It is submitted that both the authorities have failed to take into consideration the evidence produced on the record before the Collector with regard to purchase of agricultural land at Village:Vitthalpur, Tal:Talala, Dist:Junagadh in the year 1962 and Entry No.138 on the basis of such purchase came to be certified on 20.03.1962.
6. The authorities also failed to consider the purchase of agricultural land of Village:Javitri by registered sale-deed and the Entry No.1179 in that regard came to be certified on 04.12.1998.
7. It is submitted that, if the authorities considered these aspects, the authorities would not have questioned the status of the agriculturist, as the petitioners upon expiry of their father on 31.05.1984 have received the agricultural land as legal heirs, and therefore, they were agriculturist from the beginning.
8. The purchase of land by the petitioner nos.1, 2, 3 & 5 at Village:Chhitrod, Tal:Talala, Dist:Junagadh under the registered sale-deed No.241/1999 dated 22.04.1999 and the Entry No. 845 was also certified on 23.04.1999. The petitioner no.5 had purchased the agricultural land vide registered sale-deed no.409/2002 on 30.10.2002 at Village:Jethiyavadar. The entry in this regard being Entry No.718 was also certified on 20.11.2002. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 had, thereafter, purchased the agricultural land at Village:Jethiyavadar from the petitioner no.5 under registered sale-deed vide Entry No.831, which was certified on 21.04.2007.
9. The Collector has not taken into consideration all these aspects and in the year 2019 and in fact, after a period of almost 49 years from the time of father’s status as agriculturiest, has questioned the status of the family as an agriculturist which is a long delay of 21 years, if date in the year 1999 is treated as relevant when other agricultural land was purchased.
10. Learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon several decisions of this Court to substantiate his case with regard to the delay of 5 years, which was considered to be fatal in canceling the certified entry.
11. Learned AGP by relying upon the reasoning given by the revenue authorities submitted that it appears that entry no.138 was certified on 20/03/1962 upon purchasing of land of Survey No.70, 71, 72 of Village: Vitthalpur by Mr. Haridas Vasrambhai, father of the present petitioner nos.1 to 3. Moreover, the said land was sold as per entry no.181 dated 29/04/1968. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner nos.1 to 3 and 5 had
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
