IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13111 of 2016 ==========================================================

HEMLATABEN NARAYANBHAI AGRAWAL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MS SANGEETA PAHWA FOR THAKKAR AND PAHWA ADVOCATES(1357)

for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, AGP (99) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA Date : 22/03/2018

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Ms.Sangeet Pahwa for Thakkar and Pahwa Advocates for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Divyangna Jhala for the respondent – State and its authorities. 2. By filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged order dated 18^th June,2016 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), whereby the said revisional authority dismissed Revision Application No.16 of 2015 of the petitioner, in turn confirmed order dated 31^st January, 2015 of Collector, Tapi, in Suo Motu Case No.07 of 2014.

3. The facts were that agriculture land bearing Block No.98B/1 at Village Nimbhora, Taluka Nizar, stood in the name of one Dharamdasbhai Patel. He sold the said land under registered sale deed to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

Mutation Entry No.1795 was made on 10^th May, 2013.

Circle Officer notified the Entry on 27^th June, 2013.

3.1 It appears that at a later stage, Mamlatdar forwarded the case papers to the Collector requesting him to take the Entry in suo motu revision. It was on the ground that since the petitioner originally belonged to the Sate of Madhya Pradesh, it was not clear as to how she was an agriculturist in this State. The Collector passed order on 31^st January, 2015 to set aside the said Mutation Entry No.1795 and further directed to initiate the proceedings under Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1948. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Revision Application which culminated into the impugned order.

4. The reasoning adopted by the Collector and endorsed to by the revisional authority was inter alia that any evidence was not available about the status of agriculturist of the petitioner. The petitioner, according to the authorities, was a non- agriculturist person and therefore, in view of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act, a non-agriculturist was debarred from transferring the land. Consequently, it was concluded that the Entry No.1795 could not have been mutated and further that after undertaking procedure under Section 84-C, land was liable to be forfeited to be vested in the State Government. According to the revisional authority, the petitioner failed to prove himself to be the

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

4.1 The petitioner relied on Entry No.1115 in respect of land Block No.119 of Village Vankvel of Songadh Taluka which was in the name of the father of the petitioner and which established that father of the petitioner was agriculturist and resultantly petitioner also, upon death of the father, became agriculturist. This case was not believed by the revisional authority on the ground that evidence was insufficient and that Entry No.1115 in question was liable to be treated as ineffective. Learned advocate for the petitioner however harped that petitioner had acquired the status of agriculturist. He, in that regard, relied on the Entry No.1795 itself, copy of which was produced on the record of the petition (Annexure-I, Page No.45). While certifying the said Entry, Talati-cum-Mantri had endorsed in the last column that petitioner was holding land Block No.119 and 129/2 at Village Vankvel, Songadh and accordingly status of being agriculturist was verified. Be as it may.

5. The question surfaced is whether the revisional authority could have refused to maintain the Mutation Entry No.1795 in the revenue reco

Click Here to Read the rest of this document