MITHALAL MUKUNCHAND Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2013-1-148
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on January 31,2013

Mithalal Mukunchand Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE petitioner by this petition has challenged the order passed by the Prant Officer and the confirmation thereof by the State Government whereby the transaction of the sale in question is held to be illegal as found to be in breach of the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holding Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
(2.)THE short facts of the case are that on 23.08.1990, the petitioner purchased the land out of Block No.514 of Kudasan from respondents 3 to 7 by registered sale deed. On 14.11.1990, the revenue entry came to be mutated in the revenue record and the said entry was also certified. On 24.01.1994, the petitioner purchased the remaining land of block no.514 from the holder of the land by registered sale deed. On 17.05.1994, the mutation entry came to be recorded in the revenue record and the same was certified on 06.09.1994. On 09.12.1997, the Prant Officer issued show cause notice against the petitioner for the alleged violation of the provisions of section 31 of the Act. Thereafter, the Prant Officer vide order dated 03.04.1999, found that the transaction was in violation of the provisions of the Act and declared the sale as void. It appears that thereafter, on 22.02.2000, the private respondents sold the land to one Patel Gopalbhai Chaturbhai by registered sale deed and the revenue entry came to be mutated based on the said sale deed in spite of the objection filed by the petitioner and consequently, the Mamlatdar cancelled the entry which was a disputed entry. It appears that in the meantime, the petitioner preferred revision before the State Government against the order of the Prant Officer and the State Government for the reasons recorded in the impugned order at Annexure-J dismissed the revision. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court.
I have heard Mr. AJ Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Jaywsal, learned AGP for the State Authorities and Mr.Vaghela for respondent no.4. Mr.Parekh has filed his appearance for respondents no.3, 5 and 7.

(3.)AS such, on the aspects of date on which the petitioner purchased the land by registered sale deed, i.e., on 23.08.1990 as well as on 24.01.1994, there is no dispute. It is also not in dispute that the revenue entry based on such sale deed came to be mutated and the same was certified on 14.11.1990 as well as on 17.05.1994 respectively. It is also not in dispute that the notice came to be issued by the Prant Officer for the first time on 09.12.1997. Therefore, if the first date is considered of the sale deed dated 23.08.1990, the period of about more than 7 years have expired and if the second date is considered, the period of about more than 3 ¿ years have expired. The case of the petitioner is that after having purchased the land, huge investment has been made by the petitioner towards development of the land and the said aspect was contended before the lower authority.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.