MANILAL M PATEL v. GELAJI KANAJI & Ors.

below have been challenged on the grounds that the petitioner was the owner of the land bearing Survey No.353/1 situated at Village Thaltej, which was contiguous to the above referred Survey Nos.354/1 and 354/3. The petitioner, therefore, was entitled to purchase the said pieces of land without obtaining previous permission as envisaged under Sections 7 or 8 of the Act. It is further submitted that the said lands are situated within 2 kms. of the limits of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and are exempted from application of the provision of the Act. It is also contended that the said lands were irrigated lands and were not a "fragment" within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Act. The impugned orders are, therefore, not sustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside. #.(cid:9)It is not disputed that the said lands have been entered as fragment in the 'Records of Rights'. Section 7 of the Act provides, inter alia, that "no person shall transfer any fragment in respect of which a notice has been given under sub section (2) of Section 6 except to the owner of a contiguous survey number or recognised subdivision of a survey number." Section 8 thereof provides that "no land in any local area shall be transferred or partitioned so as to create a fragment." Section 8AA of the Act imposes restriction on partition of land so as to create a fragment. Sub section (1) of Section 9 of the Act provides that "the transfer or partition of any land contrary to the provisions of this Act shall be void." Sub section (2) thereof imposes a liability, inter alia, over such transferor to pay fine. Sub section (3) thereof empowers the Collector to order summary eviction of any person unauthorizedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of, any land, the transfer or partition of which, either by the act of parties or by the operation of law, is void under the Act. #.(cid:9)Be it noted that there is no challenge to the findings recorded by both the authorities below that the said pieces of land are fragment within the meaning of the Act. Be it noted that both the authorities below have recorded a concurrent finding in respect of the said pieces of land being a fragment within the meaning of the Act. It is further recorded that the land Survey No.354 was a whole piece of land, which appears to have been subdivided so as to create the lands Survey Nos.354/1 and 354/3. Such subdivision creating the fragment is also violative of Section 8 of the Act. Both the above referred findings have not been challenged in this petition. The petitioner's claim that his land Survey No.353/1 is contiguous to the lands Survey Nos.354/1 and 354/3 has also not been believed by both the authorities below. Even, before this Court the petitioner has failed to establish that at the relevant time he was the owner of a land contiguous to the said pieces of land. The transfer made in favour of the petitioner, thus, being in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the said transfer is void as envisaged under Section 9(1) of the Act. #.(cid:9)As regards the time factor, this Court has time and again held that no limitation has been prescribed for taking such transfer in revision. The principle of initiating action within the reasonable time can not be invoked in case of transfers which are statutorily void. The reference can be had to the judgments of this Court in the matters of KOLI NAGJIBHAI VARJAN v. STATE [1992(1) GLR 14] and PATEL JIVIDAS TRIKAMDAS & ORS. v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MEHSANA & ORS. [1996(2) GLR 688]. In view of the above referred judgments, the action initiated in the year 1984 with respect to the transfer made in the year 1975 in contravention of the provisions of the Act can not be invalidated merely on the ground of lapse of a considerably long time. #.(cid:9)The petitioner has also failed to establish that the said lands were situated within 2 kms. from the limits of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and were exempted from the provisions of the Act. #.(cid:9)No other contention has been raised in this petition. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated. The parties shall bear their own costs. 16th January, 2002.(cid:9) (cid:9)( Ms. R.M. Doshit, J. ) /sakkaf