Actions under the Fragmentation Act initiated after an unreasonable delay of 8 years are invalid, and contiguous land purchases constitute consolidation.

JUDGMENT :

NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.

1. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.9.2015 passed by the respondent No. 1-Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No. MMV/CON/SBR/6/2012 as well as the order dated 31.12.2011 passed by the Deputy Collector, Bayad in Case No. CON/9/2011. By order dated 31.12.2011, the Deputy Collector, Bayad under the proceedings under Section 9(1), (2) and (3) of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation of Land and Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Fragmentation Act’) for breach of the provisions of the Fragmentation Act passed an order directing the petitioner to restore the original position of land bearing Survey No. 1041, Block No. 1090 paiki admeasuring 8719 Sq. Mts. of land situated at village Ambaliyar, Taluka Bayad, District Sabarkantha (Arvalli) for alleged sale transaction of land in question in contravention of provisions of the Fragmentation Act which was held to be invalid under Section 9(2). By the order dated 29.9.2015, the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) has rejected the revision application and confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are stated as under:

3.1 Land bearing Survey No. 1041, Block No. 1090 paiki admeasuring 8719 Sq. Mts. of land situated at village Ambaliyar, Taluka Bayad, District Sabarkantha (Arvalli) was purchased by the petitioner from Tapodhan Ravishankar Dahyabhai, Tapodhan Ambalal Dahyabhai by registered Sale Deed dated 15.4.1994 for which Entry No. 2107 was mutated in the revenue records. Thereafter, by registered Sale Deed dated 6.9.2003, the petitioner purchased rest of the land admeasuring 8719 Sq. Mts. of Survey No. 1041, Block No. 1090 paiki situated at village Ambaliyar, Taluka Bayad, District Sabarkantha (Arvalli) from another co-owner for which Entry No. 2860 was mutated.

3.2 The Circle Officer took a view that in view of the fact that consolidated scheme is in existence, the sale being block land paiki, refused to certify the entry and forwarded the papers for necessary inquiry for violation of consolidation scheme vide communication dated 30.3.2005.

3.3 Pursuant to the same, respondent No. 2 registered case being No. CON/9/2011 and issued show-cause notice dated 23.11.2011 to the petitioner and passed an order invalidating the sale in favour of the petitioner and directing the petitioner to restore the original position of land in question and imposed a fine of Rs.250/-.

3.4 The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) by way of Revision Application No. MMV/CON/SBR/6/2012. The said revision application was rejected vide order dated 29.9.2015.

3.5 Hence the present petition.

4. Mr. Kothari, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners pointed out that actual land was owned by Tapodhan brothers and the petitioner, initially, purchased one portion of the land in the year 1994 admeasuring 8719 Sq. Mts. and later on purchased remaining portion of the same land admeasuring 8719 Sq. Mts. which are adjoining to each other and, therefore, in fact, the petitioner has tried to consolidate the land by purchasing two different portions of the same Survey Number.

4.1 Mr. Kothari assailed the orders passed by the revenue authorities mainly on the following grounds.

4.2 For a sale transaction which has taken place in the year 2003, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner after delay of 8 years in the year 2011 and, therefore, initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner was beyond reasonable period and, therefore, the same was without jurisdiction and secondly that the act of the