ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE. Learned AGP Mr.Nikunj Kanara waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the orders passed by the authorities, whereby entry was not certified. The entry was carried out on the basis of a registered sale deed. However, on account of the fact that the petitioner was not an agriculturist, the same was not certified, which was the subject matter of challenge before the Deputy Collector, Collector and lastly, SSRD.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court to revenue entry No.3875 posted on 07.07.2014 in connection with the sale deed on agricultural land bearing survey No.297 paiki 15 of village Daiyya, which was not certified by order dated 04.09.2014 on the ground that the petitioner, who was purchaser of agricultural land, has failed to establish by cogent documentary evidence about his status as an agriculturist, though he has produced documents with regard to his activity in dairy farming.

3.1 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that before all the three authorities, several documents were produced, which included certificate issued by the Government authorities with regard to possession of 31 cattle and also certificate issued by the Municipality with regard to involvement of the petitioner in dairy farming. Learned Advocate therefore submitted that in view of the provisions of the circular issued thereafter, occupation of dairy farming has to be treated as agricultural activity and therefore only, objection for which entry was not certified, was unwarranted. Learned Advocate therefore prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the entry bearing No.3875 be treated to be certified.

4. Learned AGP opposing the petition submitted that though the circulars are to the effect of treating occupation of dairy farming to be covered under the agricultural activity, still, the authorities have not certified entry on account of insufficient evidence placed in support of the petitioner and therefore, the authorities were justified in not certifying the entry.

5. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the petitioner had purchased agricultural land under a sale deed in the year 2014 (Annexure-E). Based on this, application was made for mutating the name, for which entry was posted bearing No.3875 on 07.02.2014. However, this entry was not certified by order dated 04.09.2014, wherein it was observed that on account of the fact that the petitioner has not produced necessary documents pertaining to his occupation of dairy farming, the entry could not be certified. This was the subject matter of challenge before the Collector in appeal under Rule 108(5) of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules. The Collector upheld the very objection by observing that from the details produced by the petitioner, the petitioner was unable to establish that the petitioner was engaged in dairy farming (“Maldhari”) as required under Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy, Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 and therefore, the petitioner was rightly not treated to be an agriculturist. This order was again subject matter of challenge under Rule 108(6A) of the Land Revenue Rules before the SSRD and the SSRD in its order in Revision Application No.35 of 2019 was pleased to reject the application by order dated

11.06.2019.

6. It is pertinent to point out that before all the authorities, the petitioner had categorically taken up stand that the petitioner was “Maldhari” (“Bharvad”) and was having dairy farming occupation and in support, had produced village form No.15, which pertains to holding of cattle. Perusal of this form would indicate that the petitioner is having in total 31 cattle, which include cows, buffaloes, bullocks, goats and sheep. Over and above, other documents issued are the certificates issued by the local bodies like Gram Panc