PATEL KAMUBEN PRAHLADBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this petition has prayed for the appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order of the Prant Officer dated 28.2.2003 and its confirmation by the State Government vide order dated 14.11.2003 / 22.12.2003; whereby, sale in favour of the petitioner for the agricultural land is set aside as in breach of provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the Act ).

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that: the petitioner was holding land ad-measuring 2 Acres and 2 Gunthas bearing Survey No.558. As per the petitioner, there was adjoining land ad-measuring 1 Acre and 1 Guntha, of Survey No.559, which has been purchased by the petitioner vide registered sale-deed dated 11.7.1996. The revenue entry for the sale was effected in the year 2000 and in the meantime, on 1.4.1999, the notice came to be issued for initiation of the proceedings under the Act on the ground that the transaction is hit by the provisions of the Act since it is to result as fragment and without prior permission, the document has been executed and the sale has taken place. Neither the petitioner nor original owner remained present before the Prant Officer who had initiated the proceedings. The Prant Officer ultimately found that the transaction is hit by the provisions of the Act and therefore, vide order dated 28.2.2003 declared the transaction as invalid and illegal and imposed fine of Rs.250/- to the original owner. The matter was carried in the revision before the State Government and the State Government vide impugned order at Annexure-D dismissed the revision and confirmed the order of the Prant Officer. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court.

(3.) IT was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the proceedings are barred by delay. It was also submitted that the petitioner was holding the adjoining land and if adjoining land is purchased, it cannot be said that transaction is in breach of the provisions of the Act since the purpose of the Act would not be frustrated. He relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Koli Sorsingbhai Sharkerbhai V/s. State of Gujarat reported in 1998(3) GCD 2590. Learned counsel for supporting the contention on the aspects of the delay, relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin V/s. Fatamabai Ibrahim reported in 1997 (6) SCC 71. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order may be quashed by this Court.