JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate with Mr. Jay Thakkar, learned advocate waives service of notice on behalf of respondent. Rule is fixed forthwith.

2. By way of present petition, the State of Gujarat has challenged the order dated 19.8.1997 passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. TEN.A.R. 8/95 setting aside the order of the learned Collector, Rajkot.

3. Brief facts of the case is that private respondent has submitted an application to the Mamlatdar, Rajkot on 15.3.1993 that he has purchased the land about 1000 sq. Yds from S. No.38/4 of Village Vavdi, Taluka & District: Rajkot by registered sale document bearing No. 145 dated 5.1.89 from the heirs of Parsottambhai Fulabhai . The land was originally belonging to Girasdar Naransinh Bhagvatsinh and Natubha Naransinh, who by registered sale-deed No. 76/1949 had sold as “Aghat”, admeasuring 2000 Sq. Yds to Parsottambhai Fulabhia, out of which the private respondent has purchased 1000 Sq. Yds from Parsottambhai Fulabhai. As the disputed land was not entered into revenue records as “Aghat” sale to him, the private respondent requested the Mamlatdar to regularise under the Rules prevailing in 1949 in the erstwhile Saurashtra State.

3.1 After holding inquiry by the Mamlatdar, Rajkot, he forwarded the case papers to the Deputy Collector, Rajkot, who after holding inquiry, held, by his order dated 9.11.1994 that the Suit land does not belong to Girasdar Naransinh Bhagvatsinh but belongs to the State and held that the private respondent was holding possession unauthorisedly and ordered that the Mamlatdar should taken action under Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

4. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the private respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Collector, Rajkot, which came to be dismissed by him on 7.4.1995. Against that order, the private respondent preferred an Appeal before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by Appeal No. TEN.A.R. 9/95, which came to be allowed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide its order dated 19.8.1997, holding that the land in question does not belong to the Government Land but it is a private land.

5. Being aggrieved by this order of the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the State has filed the present appeal on the following grounds:

(i) The private respondent has not produced any documentary evidence except the sale-deed dated 27.1.1994 , which is also contradictory and misguiding the Court.

(ii) The document is got-up and forged one and there is no entry in the revenue record to show that the disputed land is in the name of the private respondent.

(iii) The Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that there was an ordinance No. 4 of 1948 promulgated by the erstwhile Saurashtra State and, therefore, the sale deed for the land in question is null and void.

(iv) The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has no Revisional authority and ought not to have passed such order.

(v) The Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance 1949, essentially in Section 54 provides restrictions of transfer of agricultural land, Management of uncultivated land and acquisition as estate and land. The Tribunal committed error in interpreting the said provision of Section 54.

(vi) The Tribunal ought to have hold that in view of the provisions of Section 54, the bequeath of Sale-deed of agricultural land is illegal and void.

(vii) The very transfer of the agricultural land to non-agriculturist is ab-initio void and no better title can pass to beneficiaries than what the original holder had and, therefore, the restriction on transfer made in the law were and are also binding to the original holder and, therefore, the order passed by the Collector is legal and valid.

(viii) Regarding delay, it is contended that some delay has occurred in preferring this petition due to procedural delay in getting sanction from the Legal Department, the delay has occurred and it is not fatal.

On the aforesaid grounds, the petit