IMPORTANT POINT
The court confirmed that bid lands are included under the definitions of 'land' and 'agriculture' in the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, reaffirming the limited scope of remand orders.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)

Re.: The Challenge

1. In the captioned appeals, the challenge, is to the CAV judgment dated 20.12.2005 passed by the learned single Judge whereby, the writ petition being Special Civil Application no.13065 of 1994, has been allowed and (i) order dated 16.08.1993 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Lodhika; (ii) order dated 09.12.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector; and (iii) order dated 12.10.1994 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), have been quashed and set aside. Special Civil Application no.10235 of 1996 filed by the State Government, has been dismissed and Special Civil Application no.5174 of 1996 by the petitioner-holder, has been disposed of, it having been rendered infructuous in view of the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the ULC Act”).

Re: Brief background

2. Center to the issue, is land bearing survey no.250, admeasuring 198 acres and 39 gunthas of village Raiya (hereinafter referred to as “the land in question”) and the proceedings arising out of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling (Amendment) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Amendment Act of 1972”), which came to be enacted with effect from 01.04.1976 so also the scope of remand order passed by the Apex Court and the co-ordinate bench of this Court. Issue, ancillary to the main issue, also touches the provisions of the ULC Act.

2.1 The issue involved, has a chequered history; however, facts, in crisp, are set out hereinbelow:

2.2 Shri Harishchandrasinhji Bharatsinhji Jadeja the original petitioner i.e. the respondent no.1 in Special Civil Application no.13065 of 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the holder or the petitioner, as the context warrants”), had filed form no.2 under the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1960”) as amended by the Amendment Act of 1972, declaring total holding of acres 311 of village Raiya and Pal, including survey no.250, admeasuring acres 198 and 39 gunthas, i.e. the land in question. Notably, the ceiling limit as per the schedule-I for class ‘H’ prescribed is 51 acres, as one unit, hence, ceiling case no.19/1976-1977 was registered by the Mamlatdar & ALT who, declared acres 209 and 6 gunthas as surplus land, by passing an order dated 31.01.1977. Appeal as well as revision both came to be rejected which led to the filing of Special Civil Application no.148 of 1980 before this Court.

2.3 The writ petition was heard and the Hon’ble Division Bench, was pleased to remand the matter to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal with a direction that:

“the Tribunal will afford to the petitioner an opportunity to make selection in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of the Act and it will redetermine the said issue in light of the representation of the petitioner and in accordance with law…….”

“the petitioner will himself prefer an application for selection before the said Tribunal within a period of one month and upon receipt of such application, the Tribunal shall proceed to consider and decide the same within a period of one month.”

2.4 An application was made to the Mamlatdar by the petitioner indicating the land and the survey nos. which the petitioner desired to retain i.e. acres 102 including acres 49 and 29 gunthas of the land in question and the land acre 209.05 gunthas that may be vested in the State Government. Order dated 30.05.1983 was passed giving choice to the petitioner, allowing him to retain acre 49.29 gunthas whereas, acres 149.11 gunthas was declared as a surplus land. On the other hand, the State Government had filed a review application being Miscellaneous Civil Application no.489 of 1983 on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which was rejected. Being aggrieved, the State preferred a Civil Appeal before the Apex Court and the Apex Court, vide order dated 25.10.1983, while setting as