Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 701 (GUJ)

Bhudarbhai Somabhai Kanbi v. State Of Gujarat

2018-05-09

N.V.ANJARIA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.V.C.Vaghela with learned advocate Mr.Anand Thakkar for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondents, appearing upon service of copy of the petition in advance. 2. This petition is directed against order dated 28.07.2016, passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad, whereby the revisional authority dismissed Revision Application No.12 of 2012 of the petitioners herein, consequently upheld the order dated 05.05.2012 of the Collector, Banaskantha. 3. The Facts Were That Land Bearing Survey Nos.264 and 265 situated at village Dhanera was jointly held in the names of Brahman Harjivan Ladha, Kashiram Ladha and Dharma Ladha, who were in possession. They were holding the land as new tenure. Entry No.671 dated 19.06.1958 figured in the revenue records showing this position. The land was sold on 31.08.1982 to one Kanbi Bhudarbhai Somabhai, since deceased, whose heirs are the petitioners. The said sale was treated to be in breach of condition. 3.1 The Deputy Collector initiated case for breach of condition and passed order dated 30.03.1983 to enter the land in the name of the State Government. The aggrieved petitioners preferred appeal before the District Collector, who dismissed the appeal on 24.02.1984. Thereafter, the Revision Application was filed before the revisional authority which was also dismissed on 30.07.1984. The petitioners thereafter approached this Court by means of Special Civil Application No.5370 of 1984. This Court remanded the case to the revisional authority. What culminated is the impugned order. 4. Learned Advocate For The Petitioners Vehemently submitted that the orders passed by the respondent authorities were illegal and were contrary to the policy circulars of the State Government. It was submitted that this Court had only remanded the case. It was also submitted that the aspect of payment of premium was not properly considered by the authorities, that the direction issued by the revisional authority to recover prevalent market rate as per Circular dated 04.07.2008 was erroneous and that it amounted to violation of this Court's order. It was submitted that Section 84(2) and its First Proviso permitted regularization of sale upon payment of penalty of Rs.1/- only. Learned advocate for the petitioners relied on State Government Resolution dated 14.03.1996 to submit that the conversion of the new tenure into old tenure land for agricultural purpose requires payment of 60 pats which aspect was ignored by the authorities. Learned advocate for the petitioners relied on State Government Resolution dated 14.03.1996 to submit that the conversion of the new tenure into old tenure land for agricultural purpose requires payment of 60 pats which aspect was ignored by the authorities. 4.1 On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader supported the impugned order to submit that the same was passed on prevalent policy. 5. Having Considered The Facts Of The Case, Having gone through the impugned order of the revisional authority and taking into account the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it was noticed that the finding came to be recorded by the Collector that it was not permissible to recover the amount of 60 pat and thereby to convert the land into old tenure land. In view of Resolution dated 11.03.1996, such course was not held permissible, since the sale transaction was effected and executed without prior permission. Though the character attached to the land was that of a new tenure, the same was transferred in breach. It was further recorded that the Collector had solicited guidance from the State Government while acting on remand and communication dated 06.09.2010 was sent to the Collector requiring him to act in accordance with the order of the revisional authority. 5.1 The authorities had recorded the fact position that there was no provision for granting the new tenure land as old tenure and the premium would not be recovered with retrospective effect. Neither there was any such provision, nor the policy so permitted. An aspect was further noted that the Collector had earlier addressed a letter dated 08.12.1998 requiring the petitioners to pay the amount of Rs.58, 380/-. However, the petitioners did not pay the same. 5.2 The findings recorded by the Collector and confirmed upon revisitation and reexamination by the revisional authority were based on the prevalent policy and the policy provisions in that regard prescribed in the resolutions and circulars regarding levy of premium. 6. No Error Could Be Booked In The Impugned Order. The reasons supplied were eminently just and proper. They were based on the prevalent policy. The challenge fails. 7. The petition is merit less and stands dismissed.