SAVITABEN WIDOW OF ISHWARBHAI MANGABHAI RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 ORS
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
SAVITABEN WIDOW OF ISHWARBHAI MANGABHAI RATHOD
State Of Gujarat And 3 Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) By way of the present petition filed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged three orders dated 16.06.2010 passed by the Deputy Collector, Bardoli in Appeal No. 3 of 2009, by which the Deputy Collector has held that the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, has committed breach of Section 73(AA)(1) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1979 (herein after referred to as 'the Code' for short) and has ordered that the land in question, which was given to the husband of the petitioner being a tribal, shall be vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances as well as has also challenged the order dated 18.06.2011 passed by the District Collector, Surat in Appeal No. 1 of 2011 as well as the order dated 24.05.2013 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department in Revision Application No. 7 of 2011 by which the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority have confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector.
(2.) Brief facts arise from the record are as under:
2.1. That 10 (Ten) scheduled tribal persons were allotted a piece of land admeasuring 101 sq.mtrs. of village Asta, Taluka Kamrej, District Surat to construct the huts for their residential purpose. Accordingly, an entry was mutated in Form No. 6 as an entry No. 62 on 29.01.1952.
2.2. The husband of the petitioner namely Ishwarbhai Maganbhai Rathod was one of the said 10 tribals, who were permitted to construct the residential premises. Said Ishwarbhai Maganbhai Rathod expired on 05.05.2006. The petitioner i.e. widow of Ishwarbhai Maganbhai Rathod submitted an application on 11.12.2008, under Section 73(AA) of the Code to the Deputy Collector and pleaded that by creating forged agreement, Dayaram Kalyan Patel i.e. respondent No. 4, herein, has purchased the property and has constructed the house and handed over to the other persons. It was further contended by the petitioner that since respondent No. 4 was a nontribal person, the socalled agreement be cancelled and action under Sections 73(A) and 73(AA) of the Code may be taken and the possession of the property, which was allotted to the husband of the petitioner as a tribal, shall be handed over to her.
2.3. The said case was numbered as appeal No. 3 of 2009. The Deputy Collector called for a report from Mamlatdar, Taluka Kamrej and after perusing the documentary evidence produced along with the report and also after hearing the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 came to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed breach of Section 73(A) of the Code. It was further held that the land, which was allotted to the husband of the petitioner vests to the State Government free from all encumbrances for the breach of Section 73(A) of the Code. The said decision was challenged by way of appeal and subsequently the revision, which have been dismissed as stated herein above. Hence this petition.
(3.) Notices have been issued to the respondents. Mr.V.R.Jani, learned AGP, has argued on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Mr.Jadeja, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 4 is not present. None of the respondents have filed affidavitinreply.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.