The High Court of Gujarat quashed orders declaring petitioner's agriculturalland as surplus. Holding that transferred Held that actual grantee's land was excluded from surplus calculation.
Impugned orders at Annexures A, B and C regarding 3 acres and 21 gunthas of petitioner's land are quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/SCA/11573/2002 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11573 of 2002
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
========================================================
JERAMBHAI VIRBHAI AHIR SINCE DECEASED THRU HEIRS....Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL & 7....Respondent(s)
========================================================
Appearance:
MR KK TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR BHARAT VYAS, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 4 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 6.1 - 6.5 , 8
========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date : 30/06/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/11573/2002 JUDGMENT
Page 2 of 4
C/SCA/11573/2002 JUDGMENT
acquired from the original holder or his heirs and in case it is not sufficient, then only the authorities can refer to the land which has been transferred and which may not be considered a bonafide transfer under Section 7 of the Act. However, he submitted that in the facts and circumstances as stated in detail, the land of the original owner/ land owner would be sufficiently covered for the excess land. Therefore, the land which has been sold and transferred by registered sale-deed in favour of the petitioner could not be a surplus land in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. In support of his submissions learned Advocate Shri Trivedi has referred to the judgment of this High Court reported in 2013 (1) GLR 840, in the case of Dodiya Jivabhai Malubhai through P.O.A holder Vs. State of Gujarat and others .
Page 3 of 4
C/SCA/11573/2002 JUDGMENT
the provisions of Section 8 read with Section 17 of the Act that when the land is declared as surplus and when it includes the land which has been transferred or referred that it will be excluded as provided in the section itself. Therefore, in the background of the facts discussed hereinabove, the land which has been declared as surplus qua the original holder would be covered. However, another land transferred in favour of the petitioner could not have been included, unless it could be said that it was not a bonafide transfer.
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.)
Tuvar
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether registered bonafide transfer of agricultural land to a purchaser can be considered as surplus land when declared against the original owner.
Whether impugned orders declaring petitioner's transferred land as surplus are sustainable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dodiya Jivabhai Malubhai through P.O.A holder Vs. State of Gujarat and othersRelied on¶28
2013 (1) GLR 840
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jerambhai Virbhai Ahir Through Heirs.
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal
Rajesh H.Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
