PATEL JIVIDAS TRIKAMDAS Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR MEHSANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether an illegal transaction or sale in contravention of the provisions of law could be questioned or revoked or cancelled after a lapse of several years is the heart of the present petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioners had purchased land admeasuring 2 acres in block No. 1029 of 1993 of Village Dingucha, Tal : Kalol, Mehsana District from respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 by registered sale deed dated 6-6-1968. Since then, according to the case of the petitioners, they are in possession of the said agricultural land and they have spent huge amount for the development and for taking crops every year.

(3.) The respondent No. 1, District Collector, had initiated proceedings under the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1947 (Act) in the year 1987, i.e., after 19 years for declaring the aforesaid sale transaction as invalid being in violation of the provisions of the Act and show cause notice was issued. Thereafter the petitioners were heard. After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances and the provisions of the Act, the respondent No. 1 - Collector passed the impugned order on 30-7-1992 under the provision of Sec. 9(1) declaring the sale transaction dated 6-6-1968 as illegal and invalid which was challenged before the respondent No. 2, State of Gujarat in appeal No. 1 of 1993, but unsuccessfully. The appeal came to be rejected on 4-10-1994 confirming the order of the respondent No. 1 dated 30-7-1992. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the order of the respondent No. 1 and confirmed by the respondent No. 2 in appeal, the petitioners have come up before this Court challenging the legality and validity of the same by filing this writ petition. 3A. The learned Counsel Mr. Pahwa appearing for the petitioners has raised the following contentions : (1) That the delay in quashing the sale transaction is more than 19 years and therefore, it is unreasonable; (2) That the land in question is not declared as fragment under Sec. 7 of the Act and no such notice is ever given to the petitioners; and (3) That equity is created in favour of the petitioners as they have purchased the land in question in 1968 and they have spent huge amount and that is the main source of their livelihood of the petitioners. The aforesaid three contentions are inter-connected and therefore, they are being dealt with simultaneously. In support of the first contention, the learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the two decisions of this Court. Firstly, he has placed reliance on a decision rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4583 of 1985 decided by a single Judge (Coram : R. C. Mankad, J.) on 29-2-1988. In the said decision, it was held by this Court that eviction after 24 years of the sale transaction even in violation or breach of Sec. 9 of the Act would not be justified. Therein reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Ranchhodbhai v. State, 1984 [XXV (2)] GLR 1225. In that case, it was noticed that the transaction which had taken place in 1960 and the mutation entry in respect whereof was made in 1966 was sought to be set aside in 1984. Thus, the transaction was sought to be held to be illegal and the petitioner in that case was sought to be evicted after 24 years of transaction. It was found in that case that the action of the authority was not justified. In the aforesaid decision, it was also observed by this Court that even assuming for the sake of argument that the transaction was in violation or in breach of Sec. 9 of the Act, no action can be justified after a lapse of long period of 24 years. Therefore, following the decision of this Court in Ranchhobhai's case (supra), it was held that the authorities below were not justified in holding that the transaction in question was bad in law and evict the petitioners in that case.