LexSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. versus VAGHELA DAYABHAI CHATURBHAI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B 1182 STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. y, VAGHELA DAYABHAI CHATURBHAI & ORS. March 5, 1980 [P. N. SHINGHAL AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] Constitution of India 1950; Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 & Bombay Land Rerenue Rules 1921-Allotment and grant of cultivation rights Ol'tr 'Bluuha lands'-State Governnient Resolution providing for preference to ltari. jans, adivasis and backward class people-Constitutional guarantee of equality ,.;I under Article 14--Whether violated. , c JVords & Phrases-'Bhatha lands'-Meaning of The expression "bhatha land" means land which forms part of the bed of a river on \Vhich vegetables, rn'elon, cucumber etc. can be grown during the lean period after the rainy season is over, when the level of the water in the river is quite ]ow. The cultivation of such land is possible only till the next rainy season a,; the land gets submerged under the river water. The occupancy rights. D over such land cannot ordinarily be granted on a permanent basis as in the case of cultivabl'e lands, in view of the fact that the land gets submerged under the river water every year for 4-5 months. Till the year 1951 the cultivation rights over 'bhatha lands' were disposed of by public a1,1ction and the successful bidders were treated as l'essors of the lands for short periods. In the year~ 19 51 the State Government ordered that E the leasehold rights over 'bhatha lands' should be disposed of by selection, the crder of priority being (1) bona fide agriculturists who h2.d cultivated the land personally for five years or more, (2) adjacent land holders who had insufficient land for maintenance of their families, (3) coop'erative farming societies and ( 4) priority holders under the Waste Land Rules. F G H This order was however cancelled and superseded by the Governm·ent Reso~ lution dated September 19, 1962 which provid'ed that on the expiry of the then _ -1 existing leases, not held by cooperative farming societies, bhatha land should be disposed of on the basis of five years' lease by public auction. Exp~rience showed that only the moneyed people were able to purchas'e the leasehold rights at the public auction and persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the oth'er wea.ker sections of society were not even able to participate in such auctions. Consequently, in the year 1964 leasehold rights over bhatha lands were disposed of on ekasal basis by public auctions. The question relating to the· disposal of leasehold rights ov'er bbatha lands was discussed' &t the meeting of the District-Collectors held in 1965-1966 and in pursuance to the suggestions made at the meeting and after considering all rde~ ,.ant matters the State Government by a Resolution dated 28th December, 1966 7 directed that the 'existing procedure for dispos.al of bhatha lands by aucticn be disoontinued with effect from fanuary 1, 1967 and the disposal of such lands were ordered to be in the following priority : ( 1) bona fide agriculturists ef the village who were holding land less than 5 acr'es, preference being given to hari- jans, adivasi and backward class people (2) holders of the land adjoining the • GUJARAT V. V. D. CHATURBHA! 1183 bhatha la.nd holding less than 16 acres and having genuine need of additional A land for maintenance of their families; (3) cooperative farming societies of harija:..s, adivasi and backward classes people, ( 4) coopera.tive farming societies consisting of la.ndless labourers or small holders and (5) any of the priority holders under the Waste Land Rules. In pursuance to the aforesaid Resolution, the Collector by his Order dated July 18, 1967, granted 22 members belonging to Waghari Harijan Community B leasehold rights in resp'ect of bhatba l·ands for a period of 10 years. The respondents questioned the validity of the Government Resolution dated December 28, 1966 and the Order of th:e Collector dated July 18, 1967 granting the lease, in their writ petitions. They alleged that some of them were in pos- session of portions of the land of which th'ey had been dispossessed by the Order of the Collector by virtue of the eksal tenures created in their favour in the C auctions held in or about the year 1964 and that they could not be dispo81iC['ised without following the procedure prescribed by section 79(A) reOO with section 202 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. Tirey also contended that the Government Resolution dated Dec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.