SCA/125819/1994 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1258 of 1994 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 ? ========================================================= KIRANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI TANK - Petitioner(s) Versus NANUBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : NOTICE SERVED for Petitioner(s) : 1, PARTY-IN-PERSON for Respondent(s) : 1, MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, AGP for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 08/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Though served, no one appeared for the petitioner. SCA/125819/1994 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. Though heirs of deceased respondent No.1 are ordered to be brought on record by an order passed today in an application filed in 1995 which was never pursued. However, in view of the ultimate conclusion that I have arrived at in this matter, it is not necessary to serve heirs of respondent No.1 before finally disposing of the petition. 3. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT as upheld by the Deputy Collector and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal with respect to the subject matter of land bearing survey Nos.32/1-2 and certain other survey numbers of village Bandiwala finding that the same were purchased by the petitioner in breach of section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act ('Tenancy Act' for short). 4. The Mamlatdar in his impugned order at Annexure A held that the petitioner had not produced any evidence of holding of agricultural lands within 8 kms from the land purchased by the petitioner. In fact, the Mamlatdar found that the petitioner had not even produced details as to by which documents the land was purchased or when the same were purchased. The petitioner also failed to show that he was an agriculturist within the meaning of section 2(6) of the Tenancy Act. The Mamlatdar, therefore, found that the transaction was opposed to section 66 of the Tenancy Act. SCA/125819/1994 3/3 JUDGMENT 5. The above order was upheld by the Deputy Collector wherein he observed that the petitioner had relied on certain entries in the revenue records about lands in Gorva situated within 8 kms from the land purchased by the petitioner but the said entry was deleted and such deletion has become final. 6. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal passed order on 30th August 1993 confirming the orders passed by the authorities below and dismissed the revision application of the petitioner. 7. Before this Court also, no material has been produced to show that the petitioner could have purchased the said lands in view of the provisions contained in section 2(6) and 63 of the Tenancy Act. The orders passed by the authorities below are therefore valid. The petition is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)