A.N.DIVECHA - (1.) The order passed by the Deputy Collector of Choryasi Prant at Surat (Respondent No. 2 herein) on 16th August 1994 but communicated on 5th September 1994 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 226 of the against the order passed by Dy. Collector of Choryasi Prant, Surat ordering resumption of land. Constitution of India. Thereby respondent No. 2 ordered resumption of administration for 10 years of one parcel of land bearing Survey No. 90/1 renumbered as Block No. 95 situated at Sachin, Taluka Choryasi (the disputed land for convenience) for breach of Sec. 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act for brief).
(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The disputed land belongs to petitioner No. 1. She has entered into an agreement for sale with petitioner No. 2 some time on 1st May 1987. Thereafter the State Government issued one notification under Sec. 88(1)(b) of the Act exempting inter alia Survey No. 90 of Sachin, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat from operation of the Act. Its copy is at Annexure A to this petition. It appears that petitioner No. 2 wanted to use the disputed land for non-agricultural purposes. It, therefore, remained uncultivated for quite some time. It appears to have come to the notice of respondent No. 2. He appears to have found it in contravention of Sec. 65 of the Act. A show-cause notice thereupon came to be issued inter alia to petitioner No. 2 on 16th October 1993 calling upon it to show cause why the administration of land should not be resumed by the State Government for breach of Sec. 65 of the Act. Its copy is at Annexure B to this petition. It appears that pursuant thereto the notice of the next date of hearing was given inter alia to petitioner No. 2 asking it to remain present on 11th August 1994 at 12 noon in that connection. Its copy is at Annexure C to this petition. It appears that thereafter, by his order passed on 16th August 1994, respondent No. 2 ordered resumption of the administration of the disputed land by the State Government for 10 years for breach of Sec. 65 of the Act. A copy of the operative part of the order is at Annexure E to this petition. The petitioners have later on produced a copy of the entire order and it is kept on record. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure E to this petition.
(3.) Learned Advocate Kum. Shah for the petitioner is right in her submission to the effect that the notification under Sec. 88(1)(b) of the Act will have retrospective operation from the date of coming into force thereof. I am fortified in my view by the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Parvati & Ors. v. Smt. Fatehsinhrao Pratapsinhrao Gaekwad, reported in AIR 1986 SC 2204 : [1987(2) GLR 791 (SC)]. It has clearly been held therein that the notification under the aforesaid statutory provision is retrospective in its effect from the date of coming into force of the enactment.;