Becharbhai died on 24.04.1993, leaving behind his widow, Surajben (Respondent No 14) and progeny – Shardaben (Respondent No 10), Mafatbhai (Respondent No. 10 to 19 executed Agreement of Sale dated 29.09.2006 in his favour proposing to sell their share of land, viz., 2377.50 square metres, to him for a sale consideration of 17,51,000/- and Prabhudasbhai, the husband/father of Respondent Nos. 10 to 19 had received the entire sale consideration of 17,51,000/- in cash and through cheques gradually, whereas the Sale Deed dated 12.07.2007 noted the sale consideration as 1,07,000/- only. In any event, the same was taken on file as Case No MVV/Con/Ten/3/2013 by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Government of Gujarat, and it was dismissed, vide order dated 10.07.2015.
Assailing this judgment, the appellant preferred Letters Patent Appeal
No 14 of 2022 before a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, but only to meet with the same fate as the said appeal was dismissed by order dated 12.01.2022.
Referring to Section 31(1)(b) of the Act of 1947, the Division Bench affirmed that transfer of the land in favour of the appellant without the prior permission of the Collector was in breach thereof, and that the authorities as well as the learned Judge had committed no error in deciding the case. It is stated that the address reflected in the order dated 17.05.2012 was repeated in the revision filed in the year 2018 as the cause title of the revision necessarily 6 had to tally with the cause title in the impugned order.
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no holding allotted under this Act, nor any part thereof, shall be-
In terms of such determination in so far as irrigated land is concerned, a ‘fragment’ would mean an extent less than Ac 0.20 Guntas.
As he was sold an extent of Ac 0.23 Guntas, the appellant contends that it is not a fragment and Section 31(1)(b) of the Act of 1947 would have no application to the sale transaction in his favour.
Countering this, the appellant would point out that the earlier entries, from the year 1951 onwards upto the year 1964, show that paddy, cotton, millets and aniseed were grown in the land, indicating that it had a source of irrigation. Reduction of the sale consideration in the appellant’s documents from 17,51,000/- to 1,07,000/- would have to be examined in the light of the appellant’s irrefutable claim that his vendors wanted him to show a reduced sale consideration in the sale deed for the purpose of registration charges. 6 to 9 were entitled to reopen the sale transaction of 2007 in the year 2010, despite the appellant’s claim that Prabhudasbhai knew of and approved the sale transaction, would also have to be examined as it is claimed by Respondent Nos. The Prant Officer shall give due notice to both parties fixing an appropriate date for taking up the case; allow them full opportunity to adduce evidence, oral and documentary; and thereafter take a reasoned decision in the matter in accordance with law.
Case Title: KANAIYALAL MAFATLAL PATEL Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: C.A. No.-007963-007963 / 2023
