The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of holding agricultural land to establish agriculturist status and the criticism of authorities for disregarding the petitioner's contentions and adopting a technical view.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of respondents.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the Special Secretary in Revision Application No.40 of 2017. By the aforesaid order, the Special Secretary, Revenue Department had confirmed both the order of the Collector, Amreli dated 01.09.2017 in Appeal No.65 of 2017 and order dated 14.03.2017 by the Deputy Collector, Lathi and order dated 23.08.2016 passed by the Deputy Mamlatdar (Revenue) Lathi. The essential issue is with regard to the entry No.2315 and 4581 pertaining to purchase two plots of land by registered sale deed bearing revenue survey No. 368. Thereafter, entry regarding sale by the petitioner of another plot of land being survey No.400 on 31.05.2006 to a third party. By the order, Deputy Mamlatdar had rejected the entry on the ground that the issue whether the petitioner was farmer/agriculturist could not be verified and therefore, he had no right to deal with agricultural land.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that grand father of the petitioner as well as father of the petitioner belonging to Scheduled Caste, were agriculturists of village Varsada and were holding Khata No.76 and were owners and occupiers of survey No.269. This fact was recognized by entry No.75 of the promulgation of old Vadodara State and therefore, the petitioner was also an agriculturist by birth. It is submitted that when the petitioner was minor in the year 1976, father of the petitioner had sold of agricultural land, but immediately thereafter, in the year 1977 the father of the petitioner purchased another piece of land bearing survey No. 400/paiki 1 of village Varsada which at the relevant time was under a ‘Banakhat’. The name of the mother of the petitioner was mutated in connection with survey No.400 paiki 1 in the year 1996 on the basis of a registered sale deed with entry No.2291 and it is thereafter that the petitioner had entered into transaction which was in the year 2016 and therefore, the petitioner was indeed an agriculturist. This aspect is completely given a gobye by the authorities including SSRD and by treating the petitioner as non-agriculturist, not only the entry with regard to the petitioner’s land, and transaction was cancelled, but by the impugned order passed by the Collector, directions were also issued to take into the revision entry Nos.2291 and 3791 by invoking Section 84C of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

3.1. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who was a agriculturist by birth and that had remained connected with the agriculturist activity throughout, may not be treated as non-agriculturist without taking into consideration the averments of the petitioner about the father and grand father of the petitioner being agriculturist of the very same village. It is submitted that the authorities have disregarded such contention of the petitioner, merely by stating that the petitioner has not produced sufficient evidence on record in connection with the fact of father and grand father being a agriculturist.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon decision of this Court in case of Bavani Kanpari Balpari v/s. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.19629 of 2017, particularly observations made in para-5.2.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader opposing the grant of petition justified the order passed by the authorities at three stages, stating that the authorities have given concurrent finding of facts and have not accepted the status of the petitioner as an agriculturist on the basis no evidence being produced by the petitioner in this regard. Learned AGP submitted that the authorities were justified in holding that the petitioner could not make out a case on the basis of evidence of their father and grand father being agriculturist nor the petitioner could make out a case that after sale of their ancestr