Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 455 (GUJ)

Ukani Jaykumar Kantilal v. State Of Gujarat

2024-03-06

NIRZAR S.DESAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 1.7.2023 passed by the Collector, Kheda whereby the petitioner's application for deciding/ascertaining premium for N.A. purpose was rejected. 2. In view of consent of the parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. Hence, Rule. Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of respondents. 3. The dispute pertains to land bearing Revenue Survey No.261 of village Laxmanpura, Tal. Kathlal, Dist. Kheda which was originally allotted to one Shahbhaiji Mangaji and Mohanji Mangaji. The land was a restricted tenure land and the same was new tenure land as stated in the petition. The restrictions were lifted and the land was converted into old tenure land in the year 2009 and the effect of the aforesaid order was given in the revenue record vide Entry No.2441 dated 22.3.2010. Thereafter, the land was sold by way of registered Sale deed in the year 2012 to one Hardik Upendrabhai and Devendra Dashrathbhai for which Entry No.2613 was mutated on 28.2.2012 and certified thereafter. Thereafter, they transferred the land vide Registered Sale Deed dated 27.5.2013 in favour of one Ansuyaben Karunashankar for which Entry No.2711 dated 29.5.2013 was mutated and the same was certified. 4. The petitioner purchased the land in question by way of Registered Sale Deed No.1105 dated 6.11.2015 for which Entry No.2929 dated 6.11.2015 was mutated and the same was certified. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application on 7.4.2023 for deciding/ascertaining premium for N.A. purpose but the same was "filed" vide impugned order dated 1.7.2023 on the ground that the predecessor-in-title of the land in question does not seem to be an agriculturist. 5. Mr. Vimal Purohit, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that all that is stated in the impugned order dated 1.7.2023 is that while filing the application of the petitioner for deciding/ascertaining premium for N.A. purpose, in view of Entry No.2613 and 2711, it could not be verified that whether the predecessor-in-title of the land in question at the relevant point of time was an agriculturist or not. He further submitted that Entry No.2613 was mutated on 28.2.2012 and Entry No.2711 was mutated on 29.5.2013 i.e. almost before 10 years before the petitioners made an application for deciding/ascertaining premium for N.A. purpose as the petitioner purchased the land in question in the year 2015 by way of registered Sale Deed and the petitioner's status as an agriculturist has not been questioned by the authorities. He further submitted that all the records about whether at the relevant point of time, the predecessor-in-title of the land was an agriculturist or not remains with the revenue authorities as the revenue authority of the concerned Taluka was the custodian of the record and, therefore, the authority at the relevant point of time mutated the revenue entry and certified it after due verification and therefore, such ground is not available to the respondent - Collector, Kheda while filing the application of the petitioner. He further submitted that when the land has been purchased by the petitioner by way of registered Sale Deed in the year 2015, status of the petitioner as an agriculturist is not questioned and such exercise of verifying whether the petitioner's predecessor-in-title were agriculturist or not is absolutely irrelevant and unwarranted, more particularly, when there are no proceedings initiated and/or pending at present alleging that the predecessor-in-title of the land in question were not agriculturists. He further submitted that such consideration would be relevant only in case if it is alleged that the petitioner is not an agriculturist and, therefore, the ground on which the petitioner's application for deciding/ascertaining premium for N.A. purpose is rejected is absolutely irrelevant and non-existent and, therefore, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 6. Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the petition. Pursuant to a query from the Court, as the concerned officer i.e. Mr. Mitesh Kanejiya, Deputy Mamlatdar, Tenancy Branch, Collector office, Nadiad, who is assisting the learned AGP is present in the Court, upon instructions, learned AGP submitted that there are no proceedings either initiated at any point of time against the predecessor-in-title of the land in question and Entry Nos.2613 and 2711 were never questioned or taken into revision on the ground that the predecessor-in-title were non-agriculturists. Upon instructions, she further submitted that even at present also, no proceedings in respect of land in question are pending. Upon instructions, she further submitted that even at present also, no proceedings in respect of land in question are pending. She, therefore, submitted that this Court may pass appropriate order as the application of the petitioner was filed as it could not be verified that the predecessor-in-title of the land in question were agriculturists or not. 7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the record. All that this Court is required to see is whether the impugned order is legally correct or not. Considering the fact that the application of the petitioner for deciding/ascertaining premium for N.A. purpose in respect of the land in question has been filed on the ground that Entry No.2613 and 2711 could not be verified whether the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner were agriculturists or not, the Court is required to see the correctness of the impugned order by taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect only. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit pointed out from the petition itself and more particularly, from pages 32 and 33 that at the relevant point of time, though Entry Nos.2613 and 2711 were mutated on 28.2.2012 and 29.5.2013, the same were certified after due verification that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners were agriculturists and thereafter only their names were mutated in the revenue record. Further, I am also of the view that when the transaction in respect of land in question had taken place almost before 10 years and the petitioner had purchased the land in question in the year 2015 and when there is no doubt about the petitioner's status as an agriculturist, it is absolutely irrelevant consideration on the part of the respondent authority to consider as to whether the predecessor-in-title of the land in question were agriculturists or not, more particularly when against those persons during the time during which they were holding the land, no proceedings of such nature were ever initiated or even afterwords till today also, no such proceedings are initiated by the authority which fact is confirmed by learned AGP upon instructions and hence, such extraneous consideration cannot be said to be a relevant consideration while considering the application of the petitioner. 9. Resultantly, the present petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 1.7.2023 passed by the Collector, Kheda is quashed and set aside. 9. Resultantly, the present petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 1.7.2023 passed by the Collector, Kheda is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Collector, Kheda for considering the same afresh in accordance with law and as per the time limit prescribed under the Act. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the matter. Direct service is permitted.