JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The petitioner by way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has approached this Court challenging the order dated 21/9/1990 passed by Respondent No.1 rejecting the revision application of the petitioner, holding that the sale of land in question made on 5/10/1983 was division of a block contrary to the provision of Prevention of Fragmentation & Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947 (herein after referred to as the 'Fragmentation Act' for the sake of brevity).
(2.)Facts in brief leading to filing this petition as could be culled out from memo of the petition deserve to be set out in order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the parties.
The petitioner happened to be an agriculturist at Village Mangrol, Taluka Nandod of Bharuch District. At the relevant time he held land bearing Survey No. 653 and 649. Petitioner purchased the land of block no. 652 which was an old survey no. 570/1 admeasuring 0.67.79 by registered sale dated 5/10/1983 from respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5, which as per the say of the petitioner was situated on east side of block no. 653 held by the petitioner. The land being contiguous to his own holding, there was apparently no violation of prevention of fragmentation. However on account of an aggrieved land owner of another contiguous block, petitioner was subjected proceedings under Fragmentation Act as the said owner had claimed that the land if at all was to be sold, then, it should have been sold to him as he had right of preemption. The proceedings were thus undertaken. The concerned authority i.e. Deputy Collector passed an order on 30/8/1985 declaring that the transaction of sale of land was resulting into fragmentation and therefore contrary to the provision of Fragmentation Act and hence summary eviction was ordered and effected. Said order was assailed by the petitioner in the revision application, wherein the revision authority after discussions concluded that finding of the fragmentation was not correct as the petitioner held contiguous land but land which was sold was forming part of block and result of consolidation and hence part thereof could not have been alienated in any manner as there was clear embargo in form of Section 31 of the Act. Hence, he while quashing the order of concerned Deputy Collector passed on 30/8/1985 directed him to issue notice to the petitioner under section 31 of the Act after giving him an opportunity to be heard qua section 31 of provision of the Act. This notice hearing culminated into passing of order on 11/4/1989 where under it was held that there was clear breach of provision of section 31 of the act and hence summary eviction was effected. This order of Dy. Collector, the authority under the provision of Prevention of Fragmentation Act was carried into revision application by the petitioner which was filed on 26/5/1981 which came to be dismissed by the authority vide its order dated 21/9/1990 which is subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.)Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that initial proceedings in respect of breach of provision of Prevention of Fragmentation Act on account of petitioner's not holding contiguous land could be said to have been culminated in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as the revision authority clearly held that the finding of the Dy. Collector qua petitioner's land not being continuous was erroneous and hence the subsequent proceedings in the form of proceeding under section 31 of the Act were uncalled for, unwarranted and the authority did not have any power or jurisdiction to order the same.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.