1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 14.03.1997 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT (Ceiling) Choryasi as confirmed by the Deputy Collector, Olpad, by his order dated 27.10.1997 and by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by an order dated 11.11.2000.
2. Briefly stated facts are as follows:
2.1 Petitioner is the land holder. He held 31 acres and 12 gunthas of land on 01.04.1976. By virtue of the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act,1960 (for short 'the Act'), he was required to file a declaration before the Mamlatdar. With respect to his land holding agricultural land ceiling proceedings were undertaken. After one round of remand, the Mamlatdar passed an order dated 10.02.1994 and declared 3 acres and 11 gunthas of land of the petitioner as surplus. In such order, the Mamlatdar had taken into account, the petitioner's contention with respect to grant of land to his two daughters prior to 01.04.1976. Such contention was accepted only in part and portion of the land which was already granted to the daughters by division was excluded from the land holding by the petitioner. In such proceedings the petitioner also raised dispute with respect to land admeasuring 2 acres and 22 gunthas out of the Block No. 230/7 which, according to the petitioner, had to return to one Mr. Haribhai Chhaganbhai as per the order of the High Court.
2.2 Such order of the Mamlatdar came to be challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Collector. Deputy Collector, by his order dated 28.11.1995, remanded the proceedings once again to the Mamlatdar. Such remand was passed on three factors. Firstly, regarding the canal certificate issued by the competent authority with respect to the land of the petitioner whether the same was dry crop land, partially irrigated land or perennially irrigated land. The second aspect pertained to the family arrangement under which the petitioner claimed to have granted portion of his land to his daughters prior to 01.04.1976. The Deputy Collector, desired that the Mamlatdar should examine whether as on 01.04.1976 the daughters were in possession of such lands or not. The third aspect of remand was the petitioner's dispute with respect to land admeasuring 2 acres and 22 gunthas of Block No. 230 paiki, which as per the High Court order, he had to return to one Haribhai Chhaganbhai. In this respect also the Deputy Collector desired that Mamlatdar should carry out further inquiry. On these grounds, the Deputy Collector remanded the case to Mamlatdar.
2.3 Mamlatdar this time around passed impugned order dated 14.03.1997 and held that the petitioner holds 6 acres and 9 gunthas of land in excess of the ceiling limit. Mamlatdar had obtained a fresh canal certificate from the competent authority and placed heavy reliance on the same. Mamlatdar noted that the petitioner had not disputed such certificate before him. With respect to the diversion of land to the daughters, the Mamlatdar gave detailed findings and ruled against the petitioner. The Mamlatdar noted that the petitioner had no son. Both his daughters were major on 01.04.1976. He held that Mohanbhai, in his declaration, had not shown any land to have been given to the daughters by way of arrangement. With respect to the contention of the land owner regarding 2 acres and 22 gunthas of land to be given to Haribhai, he recorded that such land was already excluded from the computation of the land holding of the land owner. Before the Mamlatdar, the petitioner also contended that 1 acre and 20 gunthas of land out of Survey No. 230 paiki is occupied in road and 17 guthans is occupied by a temple. Such contention was rejected by the Mamlatdar observing that the necessary record was mutated only in the year 1980 i.e. after 01.04.1976. No benefit can be given to the petitioner.
2.5 Such order of the Mamlatdar was challenged before the Deputy Collector. Deputy Collector examined various contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. Before the Deputy Collector, for the first time, petitioner disputed the canal certificate which was turned down by the Deputy Collector. He recorded that such certificate was prepared after taking into account the deposition of the representative of the petitioner. Regarding the family arrangement also; he recorded that total holding of 31 acres and 12 gunthas is computed after excluding the land already given to the daughters in 1969. For the rest of the land being 31 acres and 12 gunthas, there was no evidence that any part thereof was given to any of the daughters. Revenue records suggested that the petitioner was in occupation of such land.
2.6 Such order of the Deputy Collector was challenged before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the revision of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel, Mr. Mehta for the petitioner raised following contentions:
1. That the canal certificate was seriously flawed. The issuing authority was not examined by the Mamlatdar thereby denying opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine him.
2 The authorities erred in not granting the benefit of family arrangement under which lands were already allotted to the two daughters of the petitioner.
3 The Deputy Collector as well as GRT failed to take into account the contention of the petitioner that 1 acre and 20 gunthas of land of Block No. 230 paiki was occupied by the road and 17 gunthas by a temple.
4. Counsel relied on the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in Amratlal Bhikhabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr. reported in 1994 (1) GLR 637 in which the learned Judge stressed on the merits of the canal certificate and held that the officer issuing such a certificate exercises quasi judicial function.
5. Counsel also relied on the decision of learned Single Judge in case of Rasulbhai Amrbhai Garasia Vs. Dy. Mamlatdar (Revenue) Olpad and ors. reported in 2003 (4) GLR 2906 in which finding that the revenue authorities had declared a portion of the land of the holder surplus on the basis of canal certificate without granting opportunity to the land holder to cross examine the canal officer the proceedings were remanded for fresh consideration.
6. On the other hand, learned AGP Ms. Maithili Mehta opposed the petition contending that earlier twice the proceedings were remanded. In the third round, the Mamlatdar, Deputy Collector, GRT have concurrently held that the petitioner holds land in excess of ceiling limit, no interference is called for.
7. None of the contentions of the petitioner can be accepted. With respect to the canal certificate, I may notice that the Mamlatdar, in clear terms in his impugned order, had recorded that the petitioner had not disputed such canal certificate. From the record, one further gathers that such certificate was issued by the Canal Officer after taking into account the statement of the representative of the petitioner. Neither before the Canal Officer nor before the Mamlatdar the petitioner, in any manner, disputed the validity or the contents of the canal certificate. That being the position, the Mamlatdar relying on such certificate, cannot be found fault with. In the case of Rasulbhai Amrbhai Garasia Vs. Dy. Mamlatdar (Revenue) Olpad and ors.(supra) the Court found that such canal certificate was not admitted by the land holder. In the present case, the petitioner clearly by his conduct admitted the certificate before the Mamlatdar. There was thereafter no need for Mamlatdar to volunteer to call for the Canal Officer and to offer for cross examination even when the petitioner had not disputed the contents of the certificate. It is undisputed that the representative of the Canal Officer had remained present before the Mamlatdar and produced the certificate. His deposition was also recorded. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner did dispute the canal certificate before the Deputy Collector. This in my opinion would not permit the petitioner to find fault with the Mamlatdar in not providing the cross examination of the canal officer when before the Mamlatdar the petitioner had never disputed such certificate. The dispute of the petitioner with respect to validity of canal certificate therefore must rest here.
8. Petitioner's contention with respect to the land already alloted to the daughters, is a pure and simple factual dispute. Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector concurrently held that there was nothing on record to establish that any part of the land out of 31 acres and 12 gunthas was alloted to the daughters and they were actually cultivating such land as on 01.04.1976. Such concurrent findings were upheld by the GRT. In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, I therefore see no scope for interference.
9. The sole surviving contention with respect to 1 acre and 20 gunthas land being occupied by road and 17 gunthas by the temple needs a summary disposal. Firstly, the Mamlatdar examined such contention and held that such entries were made only in the year 1980 which was long after 1976. The petitioner, therefore, cannot rely on such revenue records. Further it is true that neither the Deputy Collector nor the GRT considered the petitioner's contention in this respect. The Deputy Collector though recorded such contention, did not deal with it. Tribunal erroneously recorded that no such contention was raised before the authorities below. However, such remarks would not be fatal to the orders on record. Firstly because the Mamlatdar considered such contention in proper perspective. More importantly, such contention could never be part of the petitioner's objection before the Mamlatdar in the third round of litigation. This I say so because as noticed earlier, the Mamlatdar passed the impugned order dated 14.03.1997 on the proceedings being second time remanded by the Deputy Collector. I have traced the previous order of the Mamlatdar and the second remand order passed by the Deputy Collector. In neither of these two orders there was any mention about such an aspect. It would therefore emerge that the contentions which were never raised came to be, for the first time, raised before the Mamlatdar in the second round of remand. In the order of the Deputy Collector, remanding the proceedings he specified the inquiry which the Mamlatdar should conduct in such remanded proceedings. Such inquiries pertained to the canal certificate, division of land in favour of the daughters and, 2 acres and 22 gunthas of land of Block No. 230 paiki which was required to be handed over to a third party by the petitioner under the High Court order. The Mamlatdar, therefore, had to focus only on these three aspects. The petitioner could not have taken such a contention which was not the part of the remand order.
10. Provision of the said Act have been made by way of social welfare legislation requiring those land holders who have agricultural land in excess of ceiling limit to part with such land which the Government could distribute amongst those who do not have any such lands. Successive remands only ensure delay in implementation of all such provisions. The petitioner had already twice in the past succeeded in convincing higher authority to remand the proceedings for fresh consideration. Even while such remand order may be justified, the petitioner would be confined to the inquiry envisaged under the remand order. The petitioner in the second and third round of litigation, cannot reopen a wholly new issue and insist on fresh inquiry on facts and on law when all previous contentions were considered and dealt with. Nearly 36 years have passed since the provision in the law were made for acquiring land of agriculturist in excess of certain limit. So far in the present case, such provision have not taken actual effect.
11. In the result, I do not find any infirmity in the orders of the authorities. Petition stands dismissed.
[AKIL KURESHI, J.]
JYOTI