AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Akil Kureshi, J.—The petitioner has challenged an order dated 31.7.1992 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.B.S.37 of 1989.
The petition pertains to Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 (''The Act'' for short). Proceedings under the Act were initiated against the petitioner, wherein, the Mamlatdar, Mangrol, ultimately, passed order on 12.3.1987 holding that the petitioner holds 13 acres and 38 gunthas of jirayat land as excess. Equivalent irrigated area of 4 acres and 26 gunthas was therefore, ordered to be surrendered by the petitioner.
The petitioner challenged the said order before the Deputy Collector, who, vide order 19.10.1988, not only turned down the challenge of the petitioner, increased the excess land to 18 acres and 15 gunthas. The petitioner approached the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal against the order of the Deputy Collector. The Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 31.7.1992, held that the Deputy Collector could not have increased the excess land since there was no notice issued to the petitioner in this regard. Declaration of further excess land was, therefore, set aside. With respect to declaration of 13 acres and 38 gunthas made by the Mamlatdar, the order was sustained. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition challenging the said order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.
Learned advocate Mr. D.K. Mehta appearing for the petitioner submitted that the authorities erred in holding the part of the land of the petitioner as perennially irrigated, that too on the strength of canal certificates which were not verified. He submitted that the Deputy Collector could not have enhanced the excess area without notice to the petitioner.
I do not find that the order of the Tribunal suffers from any illegality. To the extent that the Deputy Collector had further increased the excess area, the Tribunal has interfered and restored the order of the Mamlatdar. With respect to the findings of the Mamlatdar that the petitioner holds the land in excess of the ceiling limits to the extent of 13 acres and 38 gunthas, there is no infirmity. The contention with regard to canal certificate would have been examined but for the fact that the petitioner himself has stated that irrigation facility through canal was available, but the petitioner could not avail that facility for want of funds. In view of this, I do not find any infirmity in the view of the authorities below that the land was perennially irrigated.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not given selection of the land to be surrendered to the Government. This contention is required to be upheld. Therefore, while upholding the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, it is provided that the petitioner shall have choice of the land to be surrendered to the Government within permissible Rules. The petitioner shall communicate so to the Mamlatdar in writing within two months from today, with the copy of this judgment.
Subject to above safeguard, the petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.