The appellants challenged the said order of Mamlatdar in appeal before the Deputy Collector which was dismissed.
II of 1974.
On companying into force w.e.f.
The Mamlatdar took the view that since on 1.4.76 the date on which the amended Act came into force, all the three appellants being the heirs of the deceased Unadbhai were minors and, therefore, they were number entitled benefit of sub sections 3B or 3C of Section 6 of the Act as introduced by amending Act of 1974 with some other relevant provisions by Amending Act No.
In the third round, the Mamlatdar by his order dated March 30, 1993 held that there was numbersurplus land with the appellants as both the sons of the deceased holder Unadbhai were entitled to one unit each.
The Deputy Collector by his fresh order set aside order of Mamlatdar dated January 5.
The appellants again preferred an appeal against the said order before the Deputy Collector which was dismissed by an order dated March 26, 1990.
Since Unadbhai had already died on April 27.
4891 of 1995.
Aggrieved by the said order, the State Government went up in appeal before the Assistant Collector, Palitana, who allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the mamlatdar dated March 30.
This order of the Assistant Collector was challenged in Revision before the Revenue Tribunal.
The appellants went up in revision before the Revenue Tribunal.
TEN.B.A.184 of 1994, in a case arising out of Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act.
1993 and restored the original order of the mamlatdar dated January 5, 1982 passed in Ceiling Case No.
1982 and allowed the appeal party and remanded the case back to Mamlatdar to decide afresh after hearing the parties.
The Mamlatdar made an inquiry as directed in the Remand Order and by his fresh order dated March 31, 1989 declared an ares of 26 acres 16 gunthas as surplus land.
The High Court, relying on its decision in Patel Kala Sanas case supra , dismissed the application by order dated June 30, 1995 as well as the review by order dated September 5, 1995 against which this appeal by a special Leave has been directed.
But the Revenue Tribunal by its order dated November 5, 1988 passed in the Revision preferred by the appellants remanded the case back to the Deputy Collector.
The mamlatdar made an inquiry under the provisions of the Act and vide order dated January 5, 1982 declared an area of 26 acres 16 gunthas as surplus land as the appellants were jointly found entitled to retain only one unit of 45 acres of land out of the holdings companyprising of an area of 72 acres 4 gunthas.
his heirs two sons and a daughter the present appellants submitted information in the prescribed form.
1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
1.4.1976, of the amended Celling Act II of 1974, the Mamlatdar gave a numberice to land holder Unadbhail Apabhai for taking action for failure to submit information in respect of his holdings in prescribed form.
filed by the appellants against the judgment dated March 31, 1995 passed by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.
The main Act of 1961 was brought into force with effect from 15th June, 1961.
The Revenue Tribunal set aside the orders passed by the Mamlatdar as well as the Deputy Collector in appeal and remanded the case back to Mamlatdar for deciding the case afresh according to law, as per observations made therein.
Unadbhai Apabhai Khachar was recorded holder of land measuring 72 acres 4 gunthas situated in village Ratanoar and Motachheda in Bocad Taluka.
Faizan Uddin, J. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated June 30, 1995 passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, in a Special Civil Application No.
