Gujarat High Court
The Collector vs Champaben Manilal Tank & 3 on 14 July, 2014
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Mohinder Pal
C/LPA/776/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 776 of 2014
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 666 of 1996
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7055 of 2014
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 776 of 2014
================================================================
THE COLLECTOR , SURAT....Appellant(s)
Versus
CHAMPABEN MANILAL TANK & 3....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KARIA AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NV GANDHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 14/07/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. State Government has challenged the judgment dated 28.3.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.666 of 1996. Issue pertains to entry in revenue records of a land bearing Survey No.229 paiki of village: Verakui, Taluka: Mangrol, District: Surat. The respondents had purchased the said lands by registered sale-deed and revenue entries were accordingly made in the village records. They also applied for use of the land for crushing stones. Such permission was granted. Later on, on Page 1 of 3 C/LPA/776/2014 ORDER the premise that the agriculture land was purchased by non-agriculturist, Mamlatdar initiated proceedings under Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Mamlatdar by his order dated 26th September, 1989, dropped the proceedings under Section 84-C. No further action was taken in this respect. The District Collector long thereafter passed an order in the year 1994, suo-motu revising revenue entry No.801 dated 19.6.1980 evidencing the sale of the land in favour of the respondents. Issue ultimately reached this Court. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Collector. It is this order which the State Government has challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Whatever be the reasons, the proceedings initiated by the Mamlatdar under Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, were dropped. The higher revenue authorities did not take any further action of revising such order. Dropping of the proceedings under Section 84-C thus became final. On very same ground, namely, that sale of agriculture land to non agriculturist was invalid, the Collector revised the entries under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, therefore, correctly quashed the order of the Collector.
3. What could not be achieved in the proceedings under Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, could not have been indirectly done in the revenue proceedings under the Bombay Land Revenue Code by the Collector. Quite apart from gross delay in revising the entries, the action of the Collector would amount to negating the order passed by the Mamlatdar dropping the proceedings under Section 84-C Page 2 of 3 C/LPA/776/2014 ORDER of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. If the Collector was of the opinion that Mamlatdar committed an error, there was ample power to take the order in suo-motu revision.
4. For above reason, Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.
5. In view of dismissal of appeal, present Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MOHINDER PAL, J.) ashish Page 3 of 3