SCA/940819/1998 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9408 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= PRAFULCHANDRA AMICHAND SHAH - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MA KHARADI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS REETA CHANDARAN, AGP for Respondent(s) :1,2,3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 24/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned advocate Shri Kharadi for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Reeta Chandarana for the State. SCA/940819/1998 2/5 JUDGMENT 2. The petition arises out of the proceedings under Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act. The Mamlatdar and ALT, Chaurasiya, after couple of rounds of remands had by his order dated 28.2.1994 held that the petitioner does not hold any land in excess of ceiling limit. The State preferred appeal against the said order of Mamlatdar before the Deputy Collector who by his order dated 19.2.1996 remanded the proceedings before the Mamlatdar for fresh consideration. The petitioner challenged the said order of Deputy Collector before Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application TEN.B.S. 72/1996.This revision application came to be disposed of by a decision dated 14.7.1998 confirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector upon which the present petition has been filed by the petitioner original land holder. 3. In the impugned order, the Tribunal enlisted following five factors which were not considered by Mamlatdar upon which remand was necessary : “(i) Deletion of the portion of the land converted into N.A. And sold out to a third party from the total holding of the applicant, which apparently was found not to be in order; (ii) Calculation of the total Jirayat equivalent land as against the total holding of the applicant based on the canal certificate and other details was also not found to be in order; (iii) disposal of the portion of the land SCA/940819/1998 3/5 JUDGMENT converted into N.A. Since 6.6.87 onwards, by the parties concerned was apparently done without obtaining any prior permission from the competent authority required under the provisions of the Act, and which, therefore, was also not in order; (iv) Non consideration of the total holding of land as on 1.4.76 by the concerned original owner of the same on that day under the provisions of the Act, was apparently the lapse on the part of the concerned authorities which ought to have also been taken into account; and (v) non-consideration of O-A 13-Gs. of land at the village Dumas held by the applicant as against the total holding of the other lands was also an apparent lapse under the provisions of the Act “ 4. Ordinarily, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would not interfere in a pure order of remand. However, in the present case, proceedings were already remanded twice before. In the proceedings under the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, it is all the more necessary that on one hand land owner can enjoy his land free from any cloud and on the other hand, if the land is found surplus in excess of ceiling limit, same can be utilised by the Government for distribution amongst different categories of persons who needs such lands for their cultivation. 5. From the perusal of the factors enlisted by the Tribunal, it can be seen that same pertained to some arguable disputed question of law and facts SCA/940819/1998 4/5 JUDGMENT or mixed questions of law and facts. Even if the Mamlatdar had not taken into account such factors before rendering his decision, it is always open for the Tribunal to give its own finding and come to just conclusion on such basis. Since I find that as per the Tribunal also no further evidence is required to be brought on record, remand to the Mamlatdar would serve no useful purpose. In any case, if some additional documents are to be taken on record, it is well within the power of the Tribunal to so permit. 6. Under the circumstances, I find that order of remand as provided by the Deputy Collector as well as by the Tribunal would result into miscarriage of justice. In facts of the case, therefore, while setting aside order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 14.7.1998, the revision application is revived. The Tribunal is requested to hear the revision application afresh and ignore the order passed by the Deputy Collector for remand of the proceedings, decide on merits, on the basis of available evidence on record including if any additional evidence is so permitted by the Tribunal to be brought on record, the question of land if any held by the petitioner in excess of ceiling limit and all connected and incidental questions thereof. This may be done expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of SCA/940819/1998 5/5 JUDGMENT this order. 7. The petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute to the above extent. (Akil Kureshi,J.) (raghu)