1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by respondent no.2 dated 26.11.1993, whereby, the revision application filed by the petitioners was rejected and the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Himmatnagar in R.T.S. Case No.13/1989 dated 11.08.1992 was confirmed.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners had purchased 1 acre 20 gunthas of land, out of the land bearing survey no.1567, by different registered sale deeds. Thereafter, the petitioners had applied for N.A. permission, for the purpose of construction of a residential house, which was granted by the authority concerned vide order dated 30.05.1988.
3. Pursuant thereto, the lands were divided in plots and necessary construction was made. However, the competent authority issued show Notice dated 01.03.1989 to the petitioners to show cause as to why the N.A. permission granted to them be not cancelled for committing breach of the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. Later, the proceedings were dropped by the authority concerned on arriving at the satisfaction that breach of the provisions of the said Act had been committed by the petitioners.
4. Thereafter, proceedings u/s.9 of the said Act were initiated by respondent no.1-authority. The said authority, by order dated 11.08.1992, set aside the sale of 20 gunthas of land made in favour of the petitioners on the ground of violation of the relevant provisions of the said Act.
5. Being aggrieved by the above order, revision application u/s.35 of the said Act was preferred before respondent no.2-authority. However, the same came to be rejected vide order dated 26.11.1993. Hence, this petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It is matter of record that the petitioners had purchased 1 acre 20 gunthas of land, out of the land bearing survey no.1567, by different registered sale deeds. However, there was a land, adjoining to the said lands and bearing survey no.1566, which was of the ownership of the petitioners. The land admeasuring 20 gunthas purchased by the petitioners was non-agricultural land and after appreciating the evidence on record, the authority found that the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act had been breached. The authority found that the land in question was not a fragment and therefore, the conversions that took place were illegal. There was a violation of the provisions of the said Act since the land in question was not a part of the land bearing Survey No. 1567, admeasuring 1 acre and 20 gunthas. Apart from that the title of the land in question was not found to be clear and therefore, the permission for N.A. ought not to have been given by the competent authority.
7. Looking to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the authorities below have appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and are, thereby, completely justified in passing the impugned orders. I am in complete agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below.
8. In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. It is, however, observed that since the petitioners are in possession of the land in question since long, if an application is made by them, within a period of four weeks from today, before the authority concerned, requesting to allot the land in question in their favour, on payment of the prevalent market price, the authority concerned shall render its decision on such application within a period of four months thereafter and shall regularize the occupation of the petitioners on receipt of payment of the prevailing market price from the petitioners. With the above observations and direction, the petition stands disposed of.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top