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.