Decided on September 10,2008

Maganbhai Govanbhai Patel Appellant


K.A.PUJ,J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned judgment and order dated 1 -7 -1999 and 14 -10 -1999 passed by the learned Member, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. TEN. A.S. 3 of 1999 and Restoration Application No. TEN. D.S. 8 of 1999 respectively.
(2.) THIS Court has issued notice on 21 -6 -2000 and petition was admitted on 18 -10 -2000. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 learned Assistant Government Pleader appeared and affidavit -in -reply is filed by Dy. Collector, Olpad, Surat on 30 -10 -2000. Despite service of notice and rule nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner's grand -father, namely, Shri Premabhai Dhanabhai was the tenant over the land bearing Survey No. 263 admeasuring 2 acres and 16 gunthas situated in Orma. By virtue of will executed by the said Premabhai Dhanabhai, who died on 17 -1 -1987, the name of the petitioner was entered into the revenue record vide Mutation Entry No. 250 - and as such the petitioner was in occupation and possession of the said land bearing Survey No. 263 situated in village Orma, which was the Inam village under the provisions of the Act. On abolition of the Inam of the Inamdar, the proceedings were initiated by the respondent No. 2 herein for the publication of the names of the occupiers over the agricultural lands in the Inam village and the objections were called for under the public notice dated 15 -2 -1997. The respondent No. 3 raised his objections in the writing under application dated 15 -6 -1997.
(3.) IT is also the case of the petitioner that he is paying the land revenue for the said land bearing Survey No. 263 situated in village Orma. His name was already shown in the revenue records as occupiers while the name of the respondent No. 3 has not been recorded anywhere in the revenue records, and as such, he has no right, title or interest in the land in question. However, the respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 30 -7 -1998 declared and held that the mutation in the name of the petitioner was against the provision of the Act and without consent of the lnamdar, therefore he ordered the land in question to be vested in the Government and further directed the Mamlatdar to initiate proceedings under Section 32P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The respondent No. 2 without having jurisdiction to decide the matter under the Tenancy Act acted beyond the scope of his power under the Act and passed the order on 30 -7 -1998.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.