The sale of exempted lands granted under the Computation Act / Ceiling Limit may be illegal

- People-oriented guidance: H.S. Patel IAS (Retd.)

- Counting rights are not present in the land acquired by the public body / trust.

The main objective of the first Land Reform Acts to be enacted after India gained independence in 1914 was to have a 'cultivate it land' approach and under that in the state of Mumbai which includes present day Gujarat the Mumbai Ganot Administration and Agricultural Land Act - 18 Was framed. The permanent protected counts in this law were designated as Deemed Purchaser Tenant. There is a provision in this Act that no non-farmer can own agricultural land under section 3 of the Computation Act. Prior to the enactment of this law, there were no restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural land as most of the land was owned by kings or landlords and the practice of land revenue was different except for the British rule. Since the enactment of Ganotadhara Act-19, various institutions such as Panjrapol, Ashram, Agricultural Farm, Public Public Trusts etc. which at that time used to lease or lease the agricultural land held by such institutions to someone from Ganot and cultivate such lands. Cases for resolution arose and so provision was made in the Ganot Act under Section-3B to issue a certificate of exemption from the right of Ganot and from the provisions of Ganot and the power to issue this certificate was given to Mamlatdar and Krishi Panch. There are many institutions in the state of Gujarat. Especially Gaushala, Panjrapol, Krishi Farm, Religious Institutions, Public Trusts etc. There is also a provision in the Farm Land Ceiling Act for exemption of land held by such trusts / institutions from land held in excess of the ceiling. The right of enumerator does not exist if the land held by these institutions has obtained a certificate under section-3b of the enumeration law.

In today's article, second appeal no. Of Gujarat High Court. 15/2018 Dt. The judgment given on 2-1-2018 which has given judgment in the case of Bhailalbhai Nanabhai in the agricultural land held by Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust is given in the context of Section-3B of the Computation Act, therefore it is important for all public bodies / trusts. In this case the land held for various activities under Sabarmati Ashram in which there is only land in Kheda district for Gaushala. In it, Bhailalbhai and other persons were cultivating the land owned by Gaushala for cultivation. As these ISMOs are permanent enumerators before the Mamlatdar and Krishi Punch, they have made representations for encumbrance on this land and have made representations for action under Section-3G. But in the land under this question, the Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala was exempted by the Mamlatdar and Krishi Panch under Section-3B of the Ganotdhara. But an appeal was made to the Deputy Collector to take possession of this land to Sabarmati Ashram. However, the Samawals have appealed to the District Court against the decision of the Junior Division Court (only) seeking redressal of the Sabarmati Ashram in the Civil Court, suggesting that the Deputy Collector seek redressal from the Civil Court for peaceful and direct possession of the land. A second appeal was filed in the Gujarat High Court against the given. In which Gujarat High Court appeal no. 17/2017 The observations made in the judgment of 3-1-2017 are important. The arguments put forward by Bhailalbhai and others in this case state that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction under the Computation Act, i.e. the Bar of Jurisdiction of the Civil Court. This fact is true and the heart behind it is that under the Land Reforms Act at that time, the rights of the landlords were to be given to the landowners as quick occupants, so it would take a long time if the civil court was given the power. But the basic premise in the land in question is important in terms of interpretation that as a public body and as an institution registered under a public trust, there was a certificate of exemption under section 3B. But the question was whether the quiet and direct possession of the land was to be obtained from Ganotia, so that Daad was obtained from the civil court as part of the acquisition. Defendants in the case also argued at one point that the case should be dealt with by the Charity Commissioner under the Public Trust Act. But even the Charity Commissioner does not have jurisdiction over Section 3B of the Computation Act. The Charity Commissioner can only take action if there is an irregularity in the land held by the trust. In this case, Sabarmati Ashram was to get back the possession of Gaushala land. Thus, the Gujarat High Court justified the decision of the Civil Court to grant possession under the Certificate of Exemption issued under Section 3B. The proceedings of the Judicial Magistrate were also recognized. Thus, the rights of enumerators are not established in the institutions which have obtained the certificate of Section-3B under the enumeration section. Many institutions in the state, especially the Panjarapals as well as most of the lands held by other institutions have been sold internally which is subject to breach of condition and the exemption of farm land in such lands is also liable to be revoked.