Failure to comply with occupancy price payment negates any rights to land under the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, despite previous claims.

JUDGMENT :

(N.V. Anjaria, J.)

Heard learned senior advocate Mr. P.C. Kavina assisted by learned advocate Mr.Viral Gurjar for the appellants in both the appeals, learned senior advocate Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi with learned advocate Mr. G.H. Virk for respondent no.6, learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi assisted by learned advocate Mr.Amar Mithani for respondent no.5 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve for respondent no.1.

2. The appellant-original petitioner seeks to call in question by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal, the common judgement and order of learned Single Judge dated 29.09.2023 whereby the two Special Civil Application No. 16587 of 2022 and Special Civil Application No. 16588 of 2022 came to be dismissed. Learned Single Judge upheld the common order dated 27.07.2022 passed in the revision application by the Revisional Authority-Secretary (Appeals).

2.1 The order of the revisional authority, which was impugned in the Special Civil Applications was common order passed in Revision Application No. 11 of 2021, which was filed by respondent no.5 herein. The other Revision Application No. 15 of 2021 dealt with by the Revisional Authority was preferred by the respondent no.6 herein. Accordingly, two Special Civil Applications and two Letters Patent Appeals resulted.

2.2 What was prayed in the petitions by the appellant-petitioner was to set aside the aforementioned order dated 27.07.2022 of respondent no.1-revisional authority. It was prayed to revive the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the District Collector, Gir Somnath, which was set at naught by the Revisional Authority.

3. The dispute dealt with by the revenue authorities was in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 637 Paiki, admeasuring 11 acres and 19 gunthas and Survey No. 633 admeasuring 5 acres and 10 gunthas situated at village Sarkhadi, Kodinar. The appellant-petitioner had been staking claim in respect of the said land on the ground that the land was granted to his deceased father Virbhanbhai Govindbhai by order dated 25.03.1969 in santhani and that accordingly, the appellant-petitioner was entitled to retain the said land in such capacity.

3.1 It appears that certain parcels of land including the aforementioned Survey No. 633 and 367 became surplus under the provisions of the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act and vested in the State Government, the possession of which was assumed by the Collector on behalf of the Government. Different persons came to be allotted the said surplus land vested in the State Government as above by order dated 25.03.1969 of the Assistant Collector, Rajula, on conditions mentioned in the order. The grantees at that time included Virbhanbhai Govindbhai-father of the appellant and one Budhabhai Govindbhai, who is stated to be in relation with the appellant-petitioner. Virbhanbhai Govindbhai was granted the area as above whereas Budhabhai was also granted part of the area from Survey No. 637 paiki. At that time, the grantee persons were supposed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards occupancy price.

3.2 The case was put forth by the petitioner-appellant herein before the revenue authorities as also in the writ petition that the order of granting land to him in santhani found mutation in the revenue record in form of entry no.1306 dated 15.12.1970. It was the claim that since then, the petitioner was in possession of the land. It was further claim that possession was handed over at that time and santhani/occupancy price was paid at that time. However, since 45 years have passed by, the petitioner did not have the receipt showing the payment of occupancy price. It was claimed that along with the name of Budhabhai Govindbhai, name of the petitioner w