Gujarat High Court
Somani Bharatkumar Shankarlal & vs State Of Gujarat & on 26 September, 2013
Author: Anant S.Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
SOMANI BHARATKUMAR SHANKARLALV/SSTATE OF GUJARAT C/SCA/14230/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
14230 of 2013 =============================================== SOMANI BHARATKUMAR SHANKARLAL &
9....Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &
3....Respondent(s) =============================================== Appearance:
MR PARTHIV B SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1-10 MS KRINA CALLA AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 =============================================== CORAM:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 26/09/2013 ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners challenging legality and validity of notice dated 29.5.2013 issued by respondent No.4-Mamlatdar under Section 84-C of Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and bad in law.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners No.1 to 4 purchased land bearing survey No.926 situated at Village-Dumad, Taluka and District-Vadodara by registered sale deed dated 27.10.2005. petitioners No. 5 to 9 purchased land bearing Revenue Survey No. 925 in the very village vide registered sale deed dated 14.2.2008 and came to be registered at serial No. 5267with Sub-Registrar, Vadodara. The petitioner No.10 was the co-sharer in both the lands.
3. It is not in dispute that both the above survey Nos. 926 and 925 were originally owned by Vaghela Narendrasinh Himmatsinh and other and the above land was sold to Patel Madhuben Jashbhai, Patel Ashok Jashbhai, Patel Dilipbhai Jashbhai, Patel Mitaben Jashbhai and Patel Monikaben Dilipbhai and it was purchased in the year 1907 for which entires were mutated being entry No. 4554 and 4555. The above referred persons were not agriculturists and proceedings under Section 84-C of the Act was initiated by respondent No.4-Mamlatdar and being Tenancy Case No. 119/2004. It is case of the petitioners are for sale deed executed in respect of Survey Nos. 926 and 925 revenue entries No. 5681 and 5682 were also mutated in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners were joined as a party in the proceedings initiated by the Mamlatdar under Section 84-C of the Act and upon service of the notice the petitioner appeared and after hearing all the parties, the respondent No.4, the Mamlatdar was placed to hold that there was a breach of section 63 of the Act and declare the transfer as invalid in view of provisions of Section 84-C(1) of the Act. The petitioners were directed to register the sale deed under Section 84-C (2) of the Act within a period of 90 days and accordingly the above deed was registered and so presented and thereafter order came to be passed.
As per the above order dated 3.6.2010 passed by respondent NO.4 the petitioners No. 5 to 9 withdrew their rights in favour of the petitioner No.10 of Survey (Block) No.925. The above deed to relinquish their right were also registered. In view of the above and even subsequently the order passed by Dy. Collector in exercise of powers under Section 76A whereby notice was issued to the original owners and found that so far as block No. 925 and 926 of village Dumad the present occupants are agriculturists and name of non-agriculturists were already deleted there was no breach of Section 63 of the Act and notice issued under Section 76A came to be withdrawn.
4. In the above backdrop of circumstances, learned advocate for the petitioners would contend that now exercise of powers by Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara vide impugned notice dated 29.5.2003 for very block Nos.925 and 926 under the provisions of Section 84C are illegal, bad and deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that once the proceedings initiated and concluded by respondent No.4 under 84C of the Act and even powers exercised under 76A of the Act, the Dy. Collector was satisfied upon perusal of the record and notice came to be withdrawn now exercise undertaken of reopening the whole case at the behest of the three persons deserves to be interfered with in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. On perusal of the record and the order passed under Section 76A of the Act what is appreciated by the Dy. Collector in the order of March, 2012 is about clear finding of respondent No.1 to 5 and respondent No. 9 to 12 in the revisional proceedings in fact failed to establish their case about agriculturists and in terms it was stated that they were non-agriculturists. The land in question owned and possessed by legal heirs only after the disputed land was purchased by them and, therefore, proceedings for breach of Section 63 of the Act were to be initiated. Even Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara was also directed to inquire about holding of land by respondents No. 1 to 5 and 9 to 12 and in the above revision proceedings whether they were occupying the land at any other place at the District. Thus, if the Mamlatdar has issued notice under Section 84-C it is with regard to clear finding about legal heirs of respondent NO.1 to 5 and 9 to 12 holding the land in question after the disputed land was purchased by them. Therefore, the Mamlatdar is justified in initiating the proceedings under Section 84-C of the Act for the alleged breach of Section 63 and the direction to inquire about holding of land by the petitioners, there is no illegality in issuing notice.
6. No interference is called for and accordingly, this petition is rejected.
(ANANT S.DAVE, J.) SMITA Page 4 of 4