AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—Gujarat Co-operative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd. is before this Court challenging the order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Gujarat State in Revision Application No. SRD/CON/MSN/3/93 dated 10/12.01.1994 a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A and also the order passed by the Prant Officer, Mehsana dated 28.01.1993, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-F.
The Prant Officer, after taking into consideration ''the nature of the controversy'' involved in the matter and ''the parties'' involved in the mater, passed a very balanced order, giving all possible indulgence within the law to the petitioner. This is reflected from the contents of para which is just above the operative part of the order. It is specifically mentioned in the said para that, ''the purchaser of the land is a Co-operative institution. This land is used for non-agricultural purpose. There is a construction made on the land. Rida Mill is in running condition. The entire land is in possession of opponent No. 3 (the present petitioner). The original land owners are not in possession. Thus, the possession of the land is with opponent No. 3 (the present petitioner). The said land is in the possession and occupation of Grofed since 1983 and by constructing a Rida factory on that land, investment of lacs of rupees is made. Grofed is a State level co-operative institution, working for the benefit of farmers. Hence, in the public interest, it will be appropriate if that institution is granted an opportunity to complete the required procedure under the law. Therefore, if the remaining land admeasuring 1 acre 26 gunthas (of Block No. 898, which admeasured 5 acres and 06 gunthas, of which the present petitioner purchased 3 acres and 15 gunthas) is allowed to be purchased by registered sale deed and opponent No. 3 (the present petitioner) is allowed to obtain necessary permission u/s 63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and Section 65 of the Land Revenue Code, the question will stand resolved and hence, the following order is passed''.
2.1 Opponent No. 3 (the present petitioner) did not deem it proper to avail the indulgence granted by the Prant Officer, Mehsana and challenged this order by filing Revision Application before the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) being No. SRD/CON/MSN/3/93, which came to be decided by order dated 10/12.01.1994. Being aggrieved by that, the present petition is filed.
Learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt for the petitioner could not put forward any reason much less any convincing reason for the present petitioner to adopt this course of action. This Court is unable to visualize any earthly reason for adopting this course of action. What was required by the Prant Officer was that, ''the present petitioner to purchase the remaining land of Block No. 898 admeasuring 1 acre and 26 gunthas as it had already purchased 3 acres and 15 gunthas of that Block, which had resulted into a fragmentation being created and thereby causing breach of law related to fragmentation''.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon various judgments of this Court, firstly telling this Court that he is relying upon a ''reported'' judgment, as if ''reported'' judgment carries more weight than the ''unreported'' judgment. Later on, he cited the judgment with the name of the learned Judge, as if the judgment by a particular learned Judge carries more weight than the judgment by another learned Judge. This practice is deprecated. Learned Advocate is having a standing of 30 years at the Bar. He should have appreciated that a judgment, either reported or unreported, carries same weight and a judgment by any learned Judge of the Court carries the same weight and therefore, name of the learned Judge is not required to be mentioned in the arguments.
All the judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner are on the point that power exercised under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation & Consolidation of Holdings Act is to be exercised within a particular time limit. In one judgment, relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, reported in 1988 (1) GLH (U.J.) 20 in the case of Nanji Mulji Thumar v. State of Gujarat and Ors., power was sought to be exercised after 24 years, after the transaction. The Court was pleased to hold that this is not permissible. All other judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner are also on the same line. But then, these judgments have no application to the facts of the present case because in the present case, the Prant Officer did not quash and set aside any transaction. On the contrary, he gave an opportunity to the petitioner to purchase the remaining land of Block No. 898 so as to see that technical breach of fragmentation law does not survive.
It is the ill-advice obtained by the petitioner which has caused the difficulty for the petitioner. This Court, having perused the order passed by the Prant Officer and the order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), finds that there is no substance in the petition. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier is vacated forthwith.
It will be inappropriate if cost is not awarded in such a misconducted and mis-convinced matter. The petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred) only, deposit of the cost shall be the condition precedent for filing further proceedings in the matter.
At this juncture, learned Advocate for the petitioner requested that status quo granted earlier be continued for some time.
The request is declined for the reason that the petitioner does not deserve any further indulgence as it has failed to avail the indulgence granted by the first authority at the initial stage of the litigation.