A Section 73AA breach was untenable where both parties denied the alleged transfer.

The disputed land, Block No. 126 at Village Mota Borsara, was restrictive-tenure land associated with Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (“Code”). The Deputy Collector initiated proceedings in 1995 over an alleged transfer to Kantibhai Nagjibhai Patel without the Collector’s permission. After considering the petitioner’s position that no such transfer had occurred, the Deputy Collector dropped the proceedings in 2014; the SSRD affirmed that decision in revision.

The petitioner challenged the SSRD’s order, seeking restoration of possession. Respondent No. 5 claimed under a registered will made by the petitioner’s mother and relied on a Gujarat Revenue Tribunal decision holding him to be an agriculturist and treating the transfer under the will as lawful; the judgment records that the challenge to that decision had been dismissed by a coordinate bench.

Whether the Deputy Collector and SSRD erred in dropping proceedings under Section 73AA of the Code, rather than finding a breach and restoring the land to the petitioner.

Whether the record established an unauthorised transfer to Kantibhai Nagjibhai Patel warranting action under Section 73AA of the Code.

The Court considered Sections 73AA(3) and 73AA(4) of the Code, concerning proceedings relating to transfers of restrictive-tenure land, and Section 211 of the Code, under which the petitioner had challenged the Deputy Collector’s order before the SSRD.

It also recounted proceedings under Section 84-C of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and the Tribunal’s determination that respondent No. 5 was an agriculturist and the transfer under the will was lawful; that determination had been upheld in the earlier proceeding described in the judgment.

The petitioner’s position before the Deputy Collector was that neither he nor his mother had entered into a transaction with respondent No. 4 and that they did not know him. The Deputy Collector accepted that position and dropped the Section 73AA proceedings; respondent No. 4’s affidavit likewise denied any transaction with the original owner.

The Court held that these consistent denials left no basis to find a breach of Section 73AA in favour of respondent No. 4. It also noted that respondent No. 5’s status as an agriculturist and the legality of the transfer under the will had been determined in the separate tenancy proceedings and that decision had attained finality.

Interim relief, if any, was vacated, the Rule was discharged, and no order as to costs was made.