Gujarat High Court
Jyotindrasinh vs State on 1 July, 2011
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8501/1990 6/ 6 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8501 of 1990
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
JYOTINDRASINH
V. JADEJA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
PV HATHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR. PRANAV DAVE, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
DELETED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4.
None for Respondent(s) :
5,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 21/04/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1.0. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gondal dated 28.2.1986; order dated 15.10.1986 passed by the Deputy Collector, Gondal passed in Ceiling Appeal No.3 of 1986 as well as impugned order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal declaring 292.1 sq.mtrs. of land as excess vacant under the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act from the holding of the petitioner.
2.0. The brief facts leading to the present petition in nutshell are as under:
2.1. That the petitioner Jyotindrasinh Jadeja, succeeded to agricultural and non agricultural land holdings of his father who died on 22.8.1969.
That the petitioner filled in form as required under the provisions Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act showing his entire holding both agricultural and non agricultural lands, which was registered as Case No.41 of 1976. That the Mamlatdar and ALT by order dated 28.2.1986 declared 2691 acres and 27 gunthas of land as excess vacant land under the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 28.2.198, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Collector being Ceiling Appeal No. 3 of 1986, which also came to be dismissed by the Deputy Collector, Gondal by order dated 15.10.1986. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Gondal, petitioner preferred Revision Application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which was numbered as Revision Application No. 49 of 1986, which came to be dismissed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by impugned judgment and order dated 27.3.1990. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid three orders, the petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3.0. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present Special Civil Application was kept pending along with other petitions as the dispute whether the "Bid Land" is required to be considered in the holding of the holder under the provisions Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act or not was initially pending before the Division Bench and thereafter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It appears that vires of Section 2(17) of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act covering bid land, was pending before the Division Bench and Division Bench by judgment and order in the case of Khachar Godadbhai Prithubhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2004(2) GLH, 589 has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 2(17) of the Act and has held that the "Bid Land" is required to be included in the holding of the owner while considering his holding under the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act. It appears that the aforesaid decision was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment and order dated 9.9.2010 in the case of Nagbhai Najbhai Khacker Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2010(10) SCC 594 has settled the dispute by specifically holding that the "Bid Land" is required to be included in the holding of a person while considering his holding under the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act.
4.0. It is to be noted that in the present Special Civil Application also only dispute is whether the "Bid Land" is required to be considered in the holding of owner while considering his holding under the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act. It is to be noted that as such despite the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Khachar Godadbhai Prithubhai(supra) and despite the fact that aforesaid dispute came to be settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagbhai Najbhai Khackar (supra) only with a view to delay the proceeding, petitioner submitted Civil Application No.13768 of 2010 for amendment now challenging the vires of Section 2(17) of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act which was never earlier challenged by the petitioner and this Court by a detailed order dated 13.4.2011 has dismissed the aforesaid Civil Application by observing that as the Division Bench has already held Section 2(17) of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act as constitutional intra vires and even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the challenge to Section 2(17) of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act was given in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of I.R. Gohil Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in (2007) 2 SCC, 1.
5.0. As stated above and it is not disputed by Shri Hathi, learned advocate for the petitioner that only dispute in the present Special Civil Application is with respect to "bid land". The aforesaid controversy is now not res-integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagabhai Najbhai Khackar (Supra). In para 18 to 20, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under:
18.The short question which is inborn in this batch of cases concerns applicability of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling (Amendment) Act, 1972 which came into force w.e.f. 1.4.1976 to the "bid lands". It is the case of the appellants before us that the "bid lands' of the appellants do not fall within the definition of "dry crop land" under Explanation I(e) to Section 2(6) of the 1960 Act principally because the said definition under the unamended Act included grasslands, that is to say, land which "abounds" in grass grown naturally and which is capable of being used for agricultural purposes. According to the appellants, in the amended Act, through oversight, the word "includes"
in Explanation I(e) which defines "dry crop land" stood omitted and therefore, this Court could always fill in the omission by reading the word "includes" in the said clause. According to the appellants, the legislative intent behind enacting clause (e) of Explanation I was to include only cultivable lands in the definition of "dry crop land" as the ultimate object of the 1960 Act is to fix a ceiling on lands held for agricultural purpose and consequently "bid lands" which are uncultivable waste lands cannot be included in Explanation I(e).
19. We find no merit in this argument. The definition of "land" is specifically amended by Amendment Act 2 of 1974 to include "bid lands" of girasdars or barkhalidars in Section 2(17) (ii)(c). The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amending Act also makes it clear that there was a specific legislative intent of including "bid lands" of girasdars or barkhalidars within the definition of "land". This inclusion does not make any distinction between cultivable and uncultivable bid lands. The insertion of bid lands in Section 2(17) is without any such qualification. Therefore, this specific intent of the legislature must be given its full meaning. If the argument of the appellants is to be accepted, it would defeat the very purpose of the 1960 Act because in that event a holder could hold lands to an unlimited extent by including waste land in drought prone areas, hills areas and waste lands within their holdings.
20. There is one more reason for not accepting the argument of the appellants. The subject lands survived acquisition under the 1952 Act only because they were "bid lands" which by definition under those Acts were treated as lands being used by the girasdars for grazing cattle (see Section 2(a) of the 1952 Act). Now, under the present Ceiling Act, Section 2(1) defines use land for the purpose of grazing cattle as an agricultural purpose. Thus, "bid lands" fall under Section 2(1) OF the Ceiling Act. This is one more reason for coming to the conclusion that the Ceiling Act as amended applies to "bid lands".
6.0 Considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagabhai Najbhai Khackar (Supra), present petition deserves to be dismissed.
7.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and considering decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagabhai Najbhai Khackar (Supra)Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagabhai Najbhai Khackar (Supra), present petition fails and same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
(M.R.SHAH, J.) kaushik Top