Gujarat High Court
Agriculture Produce Market Committee vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary & 3 on 11 June, 2014
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Mohinder Pal
C/LPA/486/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 486 of 2014
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7495 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3921 of 2014
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 486 of 2014
With
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 487 of 2014
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7490 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3922 of 2014
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 487 of 2014
================================================================
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE....Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 3....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VC VAGHELA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 11/06/2014 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. These appeals arise out of common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.8.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No.7490 of 2013 and 7495 of 2013.
2. Brief facts are as under:
2.1 Appellant, petitioner is an Agriculture Produce Page 1 of 5 C/LPA/486/2014 ORDER Market Committee (for short, 'APMC'). Petitioner purchased different agricultural parcels of lands for the purpose of construction of market yard during the period between February, 1993 to October, 1997. It appears that no previous permission of the Collector was obtained before purchasing such agricultural lands. Revenue entries were however, mutated in the name of APMC in revenue record of such lands. Long time thereafter issue regarding the ability of the APMC to purchase the agricultural lands without following requirement of Section 63 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short, 'Tenancy Act') cropped up. Collector also issued notices under Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act. APMC, therefore, filed above noted two writ petitions and contended that the sales were not hit by Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. It was further prayed that in any case, the Collector be directed to grant ex-post facto permission under Section 63 of the Act. These writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge by common judgment dated 22.8.2013.
The learned Judge confined the scrutiny with respect to breach of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and held that APMC was not exempt from following the requirement of said section. It is this judgment that the APMC has challenged in these Letters Patent Appeals.
3. APMC has also filed third petition being Special Civil Application No.12153 of 2012 for a specific direction to the Collector to grant ex-post facto permission for purchase of the land under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. In this petition, by an order dated 29.8.2013, the learned Single Judge directed the Collector, Bharuch, to decide the petitioner's application for post facto grant of N.A. permission and until such Page 2 of 5 C/LPA/486/2014 ORDER time the application is decided, not to take further action under Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act. It is pointed out that the Collector pursuant to the order of the High Court took a decision on 15.11.2013 rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner's writ petition Nos. 7490 and 7495 of 2013 have been dismissed by the High Court. This order is challenged by the APMC by filing Special Civil Application No.2524 of 2014.
4. Shri Vaghela, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that this decision of the Collector is challenged by the APMC in fresh writ petition being Special Civil Application No.2524 of 2014, which is pending before the learned Single Judge.
5. We have confined our scrutiny in these appeals to the question of APMC requiring to follow Section 63 of the Tenancy Act while purchasing the agricultural lands. In view of pendency of Special Civil Application No.2524 of 2014 concerning the prayer of the petitioner for grant of ex post facto permission and challenge to the order of the Collector refusing to grant such a permission, such issue is not examined in these appeals. It is clarified that in the original petitions giving rise to these appeals, one of the prayer of the petitioner was for grant of permission for ex post facto. However, when an independent petition is filed and pursued in which the learned Single Judge also directed the Collector to take a decision in this regard, in order to avoid conflict of judicial opinion, we do not go into this aspect in these appeals.
6. Coming to the central question decided by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, petitioners Page 3 of 5 C/LPA/486/2014 ORDER purchased agricultural lands without permission of the Collector for purchasing such lands. Section 63 of the Tenancy Act specifically prohibits transfer of agricultural land to non agriculturist by way of sale, mortgage, or even agreement. Such land could be purchased only by the agriculturist who cultivates the land personally. The learned Judge correctly came to the conclusion that APMC cannot be held to be an agriculturist who cultivates the land personally. The term agriculturist has been defined under the Tenancy Act. Term personal cultivation is also defined in the same Act and has a special connotation.
7. In the result, both these appeals are dismissed.
8. Nothing stated in the judgment will come in the way of APMC to pursue its pending petition which pertains to clearly different cause, namely, whether the ex-post facto permission is required to be granted in the facts of the case of the petitioner and whether the Collector, therefore, committed an error in not granting the permission, we express no opinion.
9. Subject to above observations, appeals are dismissed.
10. In view of dismissal of appeals, civil applications also stand dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MOHINDER PAL, J.) Page 4 of 5 C/LPA/486/2014 ORDER ashish Page 5 of 5