The court emphasized the importance of pleading specific provisions and established legal positions in challenging orders, and affirmed the legal principles established by previous judgments.

JUDGMENT :

NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.

1. By way of this appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 7.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting Special Civil Application No.2472 of 1983.

2. In the main petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.2.1981 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in Ceiling Case No.78 of 1976-77, order dated 31.7.1981 passed by the Deputy Collector, Limdi in Ceiling Appeal No.103 of 1981 and order dated 24.12.1982 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.BA.915 of 1981.

3. It is the case of the appellant that mother of the petitioner filled in Form No.2 inter alia contending that the land held by her comprised the bid land which was not cultivable and excluding bid land, remaining land would not attract the ceiling limit. Ultimately the Mamlatdar & ALT vide order dated 25.2.1981 declared 583 acres and 14 gunthas of the land as excess. The aforesaid order was subsequently confirmed by the Deputy Collector, Limdi in the appeal and ultimately by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in revision application. All these three orders passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Chotila, Deputy Collector, Limdi and Gujarat Revenue Tribunal are subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge.

4. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 7.10.2013 rejected the petition against which the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

5. Heard Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned AGP for the State respondents.

6. Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the appellant challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge mainly on two grounds, that at the relevant point of time the Mamlatdar & ALT passed order dated 25.2.1985 in violation of principles of natural justice and that in another set of petitions having similar set of facts, learned Single Judge granted liberty in favour of the petitioners to raise the contention qua the provisions of Section 6(3-B) and Section 6(3-C) of The Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act’), whereas no such liberty was granted in favour of the present appellant.

6.1 Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar further contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the applicability of the provisions of Repeal Act. He further submitted that in view of the provisions of the Repeal Act of 2004, the bid land could not be declared as excess by the authorities below. Apart from the aforesaid submissions no other submissions were made by learned advocate for the appellant.

7. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned AGP vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered each and every aspect canvassed by learned advocate for the appellant. He further submitted that though the appellant has stated that the Mamlatdar & ALT, Chotila passed the order dated 25.2.1981 in violation of principles of natural justice, from the record he pointed out that the Mamlatdar & ALT while deciding the matter on merit has taken into consideration the reply and additional reply filed by the appellant dated 26.4.1977 and 13.2.1981 respectively and the defence raised by the appellant. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge in para 7 of the judgment categorically dealt with the contention canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant that liberty was granted to raise the point qua the provisions of Section 6(3-B) and 6(3-C) of the Act in respect of the petitioner of Special Application No.5113 of 1985, whereas the same was not granted to the appellant. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge in para 7 has categorically observed that the aforesaid liberty was granted to the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.5113 of 1985 and Special Civil Application No.1938 of 1984 on the basis of facts pleaded and grounds raised in those petitions. However, in the instant case, no such ground