ARVIND GOYENKA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA Date of decision: 04/05/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : Panchal, J.) (cid:9)This appeal, which is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against judgment dated December 4, 1995 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 12557/94, by which the order passed by the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. Gandhinagar holding the transfer of part of land bearing Survey No.23 of village Nabhoi, Taluka : Gandhinagar, District & Sub-District : Gandhinagarr in favour of the present appellant as being contrary to the provisions of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as confirmed by the Prant Officer and Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, is upheld.

2.(cid:9)Land bearing survey no.23 part of village Nabhoi, Taluka : Gandhinagar, District : Gandhinagar was owned by the respondents no.5 to 12. The respondents no.5 to 12 had sold land admeasuring 3 Acres & 2 Gunthas out of said survey number to the appellant by a registered sale deed dated May 10, 1984. The Mamlatdar & A.L.T., Gandhinagar was of the view that the above-referred to sale in favour of the appellants was contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("the Act" for short). He, therefore, initiated proceedings under section 84-C of the Act. The Mamlatdar & A.L.T. Gandhinagar by his order dated September 6, 1985 concluded that the sale was contrary to the provisions of section 63 of the Act and, therefore, land was liable to be vested without any encumbrances to the Government. However, as required by the provisions of section 84-C(2) of the Act he directed that if the transferred land was restored to its original position within 90 days from the date of initimation of the order, the order directing that the land would vest in the Government would not be implemented. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred Tenancy Appeal No.18/86 before the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar who dismissed the same by his order dated December 31, 1988. Thereupon the matter was carried before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by filing Tenancy Revision Application No. 287/89. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal also dismissed the revision application filed by the appellants by an order dated September 22, 1992. According to the appellants, some mistakes had crept in in the order of the Tribunal and, therefore, a review application was presented before the Tribunal being Review Application No. 21/93, which was also dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated October 30, 1993. The appellants had thereafter filed Special Civil Application No. 12557/94 before the High Court challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition by judgment dated December 4, 1995, which has given rise to present appeal.

3.(cid:9)Mr. D.V.Parikh, learned counsel for the appellant states that even if the Court does not find substance in the appeal, opportunity to restore status-quo ante as contemplated by section 84-C(2) of the Act should be afforded to the appellants as well as the respondents. Mr. A.K.Clerk, learned counsel for the respondents no.5 to 12 also states at the Bar that the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. Gandhinagar while holding that the alienation of the land in question in favour of the appellants was contrary to the provisions of the Act, had permitted the parties to bring the land in question to its original position and, therefore, the request made by the learned counsel for the appellants should be accepted. Mr. R.C.Kodekar, learned A.G.P. has stated that respondents no.1 to 4 have no objection if the appellants are permitted to restore the land to its original position by remanding the matter to the Mamlatdar & A.L.T., Gandhinagar.