IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11454 of 2019 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-

================================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No

1	Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	No
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	No
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	No
4	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	No

================================================================

KARAMSIBHAI JIVANBHAI RATADIYA-BHARWAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ================================================================

Appearance:

MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR NIKUNJ KANARA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,7 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 11/11/2022

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document