- (1.)THE parties are finally heard.
(2.)IN the proceedings commenced under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural land Ceiling Act, 1960, on an earlier occasion, the matter went upto the Gujarat Revenue tribunal which remanded the same to the Mamlatdar for decision afresh. The Mamlatdar, this time, vide Order dated 07. 06. 1979, in Ceiling Case No. 4/23/1976 held in favour of the present respondents. It appears that being aggrieved by the said order, the State Government took up the matter in Ceiling Revision Case No. 33/1986 before the deputy Collector (Land reforms), Ahmedabad, who, by his Order dated 30. 09. 1986, held in favour of the State and observed that the evidence brought before the Mamlatdar was not good enough or sufficient enough to record the findings that the wife of the holder was living separately, she was holding the land separately and she was also paying the revenue separately. He, accordingly, held that the land could be clubbed with the holding of the present respondents. Being aggrieved by the said order, the holder, Bhainghbhai (since deceased), filed revision No. TEN/ba/1093/86, the matter was heard by the learned Member of the Gujarat revenue Tribunal, who, by his order dated 18. 11. 1988, set aside the order passed by the deputy Collector, restored the order passed by the Mamlatdar and held that the land belonging to the wife could not be clubbed with the land of the husband. The State, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal, is before this Court.
(3.)SHRI Kogje, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that the Revenue Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence and set aside the findings of facts recorded by the learned Deputy Collector. Placing reliance upon Section 38, he submits that the Revisional Court could interfere in the matter only when, (i) the order of the Collector was contrary to law, (ii) the Collector failed to determine some material issue of law, or, (iii) there was a substantial defect in following the procedure provided by the Act, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.