MAHARAJA FATEHSINHRAO ZOO TRUST Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner Maharaja Fatehsinhrao Zoo Trust challenges the order dated 22-11-1985 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 648 of 1984 confirming the order dated 25-4-1984 in Ceiling Appeal No. 2 of 1984, by which the Deputy Collector had upheld the declaration of surplus land under Sec. 21 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 made by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal in its order dated 21-2-1983, holding that 250 acres and 26 gunthas of land held by the petitioner was surplus and that the petitioner could hold only the remaining 36 acres of land.

(2.) . The question arising in this petition is whether the land having forest growth can be acquired as surplus land under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act. The land in question, according to the petitioner-Trust, is a rich sanctuary of blackbuck preserve, known as Sunderpura preserve. According to the petitioner, the Trust was created on 28/02/1958 and its declaration was executed by Maharaja Fatehsinhrao Gaekwad on 5/06/1963, as per Annexure "A" to the petition. The sanctuary is accordingly situate in the lands belonging to the petitioner-Trust.

(3.) . The proceedings were instituted against the petitioner under Sec. 21 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, being Ceiling Case No. 39 of 1976, by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Baroda, in respect of the lands in question, which are situated in village Dhaniabi in Taluka Vadodara. These lands are about 12 Kms. from Baroda near the National Highway No. 8 and they admeasured 292 acres and 20 gunthas. The Secretary of the petitioner- Trust filed a declaration in Form II on 29-6-1976 in respect of these lands. In the reply to the notice which was issued by the A.L.T., the petitioner on 22-6- 1977 took up a contention that the land in question was not "land" within the meaning of Sec. 2(17) of the said Act, because it was a forest land and was not being put to any agricultural use. It was contended that there was Blackbuck sanctuary in this land. It appears that these proceedings were held back because of the filing of Special Civil Application No. 667 of 1975 by the petitioner, which came ultimately to be dismissed by this Court on 10-8-1978, as recorded in paragraph 3 of the order of the A.L.T. dated 21-12-1983 at Annexure "B" to the petition. In the enquiry it was stated before the A.L.T. that there were trees and grass grew naturally on these lands and they were ear-marked by the former ruler Shrimant Sayajirao Gaekwad for Blackbuck sanctuary. Moreover, the land was not of even surface and was suited for wild life. If the Land Ceiling Act is applied, the wild life will be destroyed. It transpired at the enquiry that these were grass lands and were classified as "jirayat" lands, as noted in paragraph 5 of the order of the A.L.T. It was contended before the A.L.T. that the land was "forest" within the meaning of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and therefore, it could not be declared as surplus land under the said Act. The A.L.T. taking note of the fact that the land was not being actually put to cultivation and that it was a sanctuary for Blackbuck, held that despite those facts since the land was "land" within the meaning of Sec. 2(17) of the Act, the provisions thereof were attracted and the Trust was entitled to retain only one unit, i.e., 36 acres of land out of the total area, and accordingly 256 acres were declared to be surplus on 21-12-1983. This order was confirmed with a slight variation of reducing the surplus to 250 acres and 26 gunthas by order dated 25-4-1984 passed in appeal by the Deputy Collector, Baroda. The Appellate Authority also came to the conclusion that the land in question was covered by the provisions of the said Act. It was observed that even if there were forest and wild life in the land, the Forest Department of the Government can look after it appropriately. In the Revision Application filed by the petitioner, the Revenue Tribunal also found that these lands were agricultural land within the meaning of Sec. 2(17) of the Act as grass grew naturally on these lands. The Tribunal noted that the petitioner had failed to produce any trust deed or evidence showing that wild animals existed on this land. It, however, held that even if evidence was produced regarding the total number of Blackbucks along with copies of the Trust deed, it would not help the petitioner because the said Act provided exemption only under Sec. 3 thereof, which was not attracted in the petitioner's case. The Revenue Tribunal therefore, rejected the petitioner's Revision Application by its order dated 22-11-1985 at Annexure "E" to the petition.