Allowed

Shantaben Bholabhai Patel v. Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal

Gujarat HC21 Jun 2014SCA/5046/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gujarat High Court allowed petitions filed by a husband and wife challenging administrative orders regarding the alleged wrongful vesting of agricultural land. The Court quashed the orders, deleted mutation entries, and directed restoration of the original owners' names, finding no evidence of land transfer and noting the violation of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders at Annexures A, B & C quashed; Entry Nos. 331 & 332 deleted; name of original owners restated within eight weeks.

Shantaben Bholabhai Patel Vs Mamlatdar and Agricultural… — Land Acquisition | Gujarat HC (2014)

¶1

C/SCA/5046/1996 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5046 of 1996 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5048 of 1996

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA

¶6

===	==========================================================	===
1	Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	No
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	No
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	No
4	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?	No
5	Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?	No

¶7

================================================================

¶8

SHANTABEN BHOLABHAI PATEL....Petitioner(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

MAMLATDAR AND AGRICULTURAL LAND TRIBUNAL & 3....Respondent(s)

¶11

================================================================

¶12

Appearance:

¶13

MR BHARAT T RAO, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1 - 1.4 MR UDIT MEHTA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3

¶14

RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4

¶15

================================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA

¶17

Date : 21/06/2014

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

C/SCA/5046/1996 JUDGMENT

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

Both these petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners who are the husband and wife under Art. 14, 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the prayers, inter alia, that the impugned orders by the authorities, i.e. the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT dt. 13.10.1975 in Tenancy Case No. 32-O-74/75at Annexure-A confirmed by the Collector in Tenancy Appeal No. 19/76 dated 15.6.1976 and the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application TEN.BA. 850/93 dated 26.9.1995 at Annexure-C may be quashed and set aside on the grounds stated in the petitions.

¶22

Heard learned advocate Shri BT Rao for the petitioners and learned AGP Shri Udit Mehta for respondents Nos. 1-3.

¶23

The facts of the case, summarized briefly, are that the orders have been passed under the Act for breach of the provisions of law regarding transfer of land which has led to passing of the orders as stated above. However, learned advocate Shri Rao submitted that respondent No. 4 is the nephew of the petitioner and the petitioner continue to remain as the owner of the land in question and therefore there is no transfer of the land. He submitted that without issuing any notice as required under the law under sec. 32G or sec. 135D the orders came to be passed. He submitted that the land was given for cultivation to the nephew by the petitioner on his behalf and how the name was entered is not clear as there is no sufficient evidence or record. He emphasised that had the notice been issued, it could have been clarified. Learned advocate Shri Rao pointedly referred to the order at Annexure-A and submitted that respondent No. 4 has specifically stated that he has been given the land

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

C/SCA/5046/1996 JUDGMENT

¶26

for cultivation and how his name was entered, he does not know. He has also submitted that he is not willing to purchase the land and therefore there is no question of any sale transaction. In spite of that, in purported exercise of power, the orders came to be passed on the ground that as the tenant is not willing to purchase on payment of dues the land would vest with the Government.

¶27

Learned advocate Shri Rao referred to the provisions of the Act and also the order passed in revision as well as by the Tribunal. He has submitted that in absence of any procedure regarding notice and compliance with the rules of natural justice, th authorities have proceeded on the basis which never existed regarding transfer of the land. He submitted that in fact the talati-cum-mantri was not able to produce evidence of any transfer of the land and therefore as the notices were not given, no clarification could be made, otherwise at the time of mutation of entry it could have been brought to the notice. He has therefore submitted that the authorities have proceed on the basis of transfer of the land which has never taken place and therefore the premises on which the orders have been passed are not made out from any evidence on record. He has therefore submitted that the present petitions may by allowed.

¶28

In support of his contention, he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of this High Court reported in 1991 (1) GLH 149 and also the judgment in Special Civil Application No. 76/67 dated 10.7.1970 (Coram: JB Mehta, J.).

¶29

Per contra, learned AGP Shri Udit Mehta referred to the papers and submitted that the entry has been made which would prima facie suggest that the land was cultivated by respondent No.4 and as he was not willing to purchase on payment of the dues the land would vest in the Government due to breach of the provisions of law.

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

C/SCA/5046/1996 JUDGMENT

¶32

As it transpires from the record, the very basis on which the orders have been passed does not reveal it. The authorities have proceeded on the basis that the land in question has been transferred in breach of the provision of the Act. However, it transpires from the record , and as rightly submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners, there was no material or evidence with regard to the entry and admittedly no notice has been issued in compliance with the rules of natural justice like the notice under sec. 32G and 135D of the Act. If notice was issued, it could have been sorted out and clarified by the petitioners that the land in question was never intended to be transferred and in fact it was only his relative (nephew) who may be cultivating for some time on his behalf. Therefore, the fact remains that the land in question remained in the name of the original owner and merely because it was cultivated on his behalf, how the entry came to be made is also not explained on the basis of any evidence or material. Therefore, it would not justify the orders when there is no breach of any of the conditions regarding transfer of the land. Therefore, there was no occasion for exercise of power under the Act, nor the land would vest in the Government for any such breach of condition or the provision of law. The entire discussion with regard to such transfer/sale, therefore, is not supported by any document or material.

¶33

Therefore, the present petitions deserve to be allowed and accordingly stand allowed. The impugned orders at Annexures A, B & C passed by the authorities, respectively, cannot be sustained and they are hereby quashed and set aside. Entry Nos. 331 & 332 shall stand deleted and the name of the original owner, the petitioners herein, would be restated, preferably within eight weeks. Rule is made absolute.

¶34

Page 4 of 5

¶35

C/SCA/5046/1996 JUDGMENT

¶36

(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.)

¶37

(hn)

¶38

Page 5 of 5

Shantaben Bholabhai Patel v. Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantaben Bholabhai Patel v. Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Heirs of Deceased Narmadaben Laxmangar Vs Collector Kachchh at Bhuj

Lahlubhai Motibhai Pawar Since Decd. through Legal Vs State of Gujarat

Udaji Kalaji Vs President -Gujarat Revenue Tribunal

Bholabhai Chaturdas Patel Vs Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal

Veersingh Bhavanbhai Rathod Vs Collector Bhavnagar

Harilal Lakhmanji Soni Vs State of Gujarat