SCA/850/1999 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 850 of 1999 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 ? ========================================================= PATEL SOMABHAI DEVIDAS - Petitioner(s) Versus DAHYAJI SOMAJI THAKOR & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PJ VYAS for Petitioner(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1, MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Respondent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6,1.2.7 RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1.2.8 MS. MANISHA LAVKUMAR AGP for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 21/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has challenged an order dated 5.10.1998 passed by Deputy Secretary (Appeals) SCA/850/1999 2/4 JUDGMENT Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat, by which the said authority was pleased to reject the revision application of the petitioner and confirmed an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Mehsana on 30.7.1992. 2. Petitioner purchased agricultural land bearing Block No.357 of village Navi Sedhavi, Taluka and District Mehsana from respondent No.1 herein on 23.6.1977. As per the say of the petitioner, wrong S.No. was mentioned in the sale deed and therefore on 30.6.1981 fresh writing was entered into between the parties mentioning correct Block No.357. Proceedings under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation & Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) were initiated by the authorities and by order dated 30.7.1992 the sale was declared invalid by the Deputy Collector. The order of the Deputy Collector was challenged before the Revenue Secretary who, as already noted, dismissed the appeal by impugned order dated SCA/850/1999 3/4 JUDGMENT 5.10.1998. 3. Having perused the impugned orders and having heard the learned advocate Mr. PJ Vyas for the petitioner and Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned AGP for the State authorities, I find that the authorities committed no error. 4. It is clearly stated that when the transaction took place the suit land was a fragment. Subsequently, may be because of irrigation facilities, the word 'fragment' was deleted from the revenue record. However, when the land was purchased, the same was a fragment. Under the circumstances, the authorities committed no error in declaring the sale invalid. The learned advocate for the petitioner though contended that the powers were exercised after long delay there is nothing on record to suggest as to when was the entries were made in the record reflecting the sale between the parries. For want of any material on record it would be SCA/850/1999 4/4 JUDGMENT difficult to hold that the initiation of proceedings was belated. 5. The petition fails and same is rejected. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. (Akil Kureshi, J.) ... (karan)