AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 41 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 41 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Manharbhai Ramshankaar Bhatt P.O.A Pankajkumar K. Borlaiwala v. State Of Gujarat & Another

    ORAL JUDGMENT

    (Per : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)

    This appeal is directed against the order dated 18th August 1993 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8242 of 1993 vide which the learned Single Judge rejected the petition summarily.

    Heard learned counsel for the parties.

    The basic contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that while the matter was first remanded by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal to the Deputy Collector exercising the revisional jurisdiction it confined to a very limited jurisdiction. But, the Deputy Collector had enlarged the jurisdiction of the remand and had further remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar. Against that order of the Deputy Collector whereby he remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar, a revision was filed before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by the appellants. The Tribunal remanded the whole matter back to the Deputy Collector and has approved the order of remand as made by the Deputy Collector. We feel that the order of remand does not suffer from any illegality as under Section 41 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 the revisional authority has wide powers and if the Revenue Tribunal has observed that the proper holding of the appellants with special reference to the land of Shri Jugal Kishore which have been transferred to the appellants, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Tribunal.

    The learned Single Judge also non-suited the appellants by saying that it is an order on remand. We consider that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference.

    In that view of the matter, we do not think that any interference is called for. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Manharbhai Ramshankaar Bhatt P.O.A Pankajkumar K. Borlaiwala v. State Of Gujarat & Another
    (Dec 21, 2009)