Research › Browse › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

1993 DIGILAW 543 (GUJ)

Balvantbhai K. Chaudhari v. State of Gujarat

1993-12-09

A.N DIVECHA

body1993
ORDER : A.N Divecha, J. The order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (Ceiling) at Patan ('the First Authority' for convenience) on 7th January 1986 in Ceiling Remand Case No. 93 of 1985 as affirmed in appeal by the Appellate order passed by the Deputy Collector at Patan ('the Appellate Authority' for convenience) on 30th June 1986 in Ceiling Appeal No.2 of 1986 as further affirmed in revision by the decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad ('the Tribunal' for convenience) on 26th February 1990 in Revision Application no. TEN.B.A. 924 of 1986 in under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order the First Authority found the petitioner's holding of agricultural lands to be to the tune of 114 acres 3 gunthas and declared the lands in all admeasuring 26 acres 16 gunthas to be surplus vesting in the State Government free from all encumbrances in view of the relevant provisions contained in Section 18 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 ('the Act' for brief). 2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. 7 he petitioner was found holding 46 acres 30 gunthas of agricultural lands in his independent Account No.20 on 24th January 1971 and his wife 33 acres 22 gunthas of land separately in her Account No. 265 on that date. It appears that thereafter she purchased certain parcels of land in all ad-measuring 33 acres 31 gunthas between the period from 24th January 1971 and 31st March 1976. The total holding of the husband and the wife was found to be 114 acres 3 gunthas of agricultural lands. The ceiling area fixed for that local area under the Act is 43 acres 35 gunthas. Thereupon the First Authority undertook the necessary inquiry under Section 21 of the Act. It came to be registered as Ceiling Case No. 14 of 1980. By his order passed on 7th April 1982 in Ceiling Case No. 14 of 1980, the First Authority came to the conclusion that the holding of the petitioner was in excess of the ceiling area by 26 acres 28 gunthas and the excess was declared surplus. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority by means of Ceiling Appeal No.33 of 1982. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority by means of Ceiling Appeal No.33 of 1982. The aforesaid order passed by the First Authority on 7th April 1982 in Ceiling case No. 14 of 1980 came to be substantially affirmed in appeal but the matter was remanded to the First Authority for determining which lands of the petitioner should be declared surplus after giving an opportunity of choice to him. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in revision before the Tribunal by means Revision Application No.TEN.B.A. 1645 of 1982. The Tribunal accepted the revision ; and set aside the orders of both the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the First Authority for his fresh decision on some five points framed by it. Thereupon the matter came to be registered afresh as Ceiling Remand Case No.93 of 1985 before the First Authority. By his order passed on 7th January 1986 in the aforesaid remand proceeding, the First Authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner's holding after clubbing that of his wife would be to the tune of 114 acres and 3 gunthas and it was in excess of the ceiling area by 26 acres 13 gunthas and declared in all 26 gunthas 16 gunthas of land to be surplus vesting in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority by means of his Ceiling Appeal No. 2 of 1986. By his order passed on 30th June 1986 in the aforesaid appeal, the Appellate Authority dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner thereupon unsuccessfully invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal by means of his Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 924 of 1986. By its decision rendered on 26th February 1990 in the aforesaid revisional application, the Tribunal rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon moved this Court by means of this petition under Article 227 of the India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-A to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Order at Annexure-B to this petition as further affirmed in revision by the impugned decision of Annexure-C to this petition. 3. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon moved this Court by means of this petition under Article 227 of the India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-A to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Order at Annexure-B to this petition as further affirmed in revision by the impugned decision of Annexure-C to this petition. 3. The submission of Shri Majumdar for the petitioner to the effect that the land in all admeasuring 11 acres 8 gunthas was gifted by the petitioner to the recognised Gandhi Ashram at Zilia and that ought to have been excluded from the holding of the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason that such gift was made on 6th January 1972 and by virtue of the relevant provisions contained in Section 8(1) of the Act a presumption would arise that such transfer by way of gift was with a view to defeating the object of the Act. No application was made under Section 8(2) thereof for declaration that such transfer by way of gift was not with a view to defeating the object thereof. In that view of the matter, by virtue of proviso (c) to Section 15 of the Act, the land transferred by way of gift will have to be included in the petitioner's holding for the purposes of the Act. 4. It clearly transpires from the record that the petitioner's wife purchased in all 33 acres and 31 gunthas of agricultural lands between the period from 24th January 1971 and 31st March 1976. The submission of Shri Majumdar for the petitioner to the effect that this purchase should be excluded from the petitioner's holding in view of Section 8(1) of the Act will have to be rejected for the simple reason that it will not be covered by that provision. It is needless to say that a presumption is raised with respect to transfer by sale and the like and not by purchase if it is done between the specified period-between 24th January 1971 and 31st March 1976. As pointed out by Shri Majmudar for the petitioner, it may be that those parcels of land might have been included in the holding of the vendor for the purpose of the Act and the vendor's holding might have been found in excess of the ceiling area on that count. As pointed out by Shri Majmudar for the petitioner, it may be that those parcels of land might have been included in the holding of the vendor for the purpose of the Act and the vendor's holding might have been found in excess of the ceiling area on that count. That is however no ground to allow the petitioner to retain any land in excess of the ceiling area after clubbing his wife's holding with his holding by virtue of Section 6(2) of the Act. For the purposes of the Act the holding of the petitioner in the light of Section 6(2) of the Act has to be seen as on 1st April 1976. If on that date his total holding exceeds the ceiling area, his excess will have to be declared surplus keeping in mind the contained in Section 18 thereof. 5. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the impugned order at Annexure-A to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Order at Annexure-B to this petition as further affirmed in revision by the impugned decision at Annexure-C to this petition is quite legal, just and proper. It calls for no interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the result, this petition fails. It is hereby rejected. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.