PARSHOTTAMBHAI HARISHBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have preferred the present petition to challenge the order passed by the Mamlatdar dated 1.5.1995 and its confirmation thereof by the Deputy Collector and the Revenue Tribunal; whereby, certain portion of the land held by the petitioner Nos.1 and 4 are declared as surplus land under Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 (herein after referred as 'the Act').

(2.) THE short facts are that: the petitioner No.1 with his wife i.e. petitioner No.4 were holding the agricultural land at Village: Obha, Tal.Hansot, District: Bharuch. On 8.11.1974, the partition was made by him and as per the said partition, different portion of the land of respective survey numbers were acquired by petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 as sons of petitioner No.1. Revenue Entry was also mutated vide Entry No.2647. It appears that thereafter, the form was filled under the Act by the petitioner and his wife since they were holding the agricultural land more than prescribed limit. The proceedings were ultimately inquired into by the Mamlatdar from 1976 onward and earlier orders were passed and thereafter, the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar and the last order was passed by the Mamlatdar on 1.5.1995; whereby, he held that the petitioner and his wife were holding surplus land ad-measuring 24 Acres and 18 Gunthas and said land was declared as surplus land. Petitioners carried the matter before the Deputy Collector in appeal and the Deputy Collector vide order dated 22.12.1995 confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar. Petitioners also carried the mater before the Revenue Tribunal in revision and the Tribunal after hearing both the sides has dismissed the revision as per the order at Annexure-E dated 22nd January, 1999. Under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court.

(3.) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 and his wife, petitioner No.4 had 2 major sons i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and therefore, they would be entitled to two separate units for both the major sons and it was submitted that since separate units are not considered by all the lower Authorities, an error has been committed which is apparent on the face of the record which may call for interference.