Gujarat High Court
Sharadshakarlal Kapadia vs State Of Gujarat on 25 April, 2023
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17363/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17363 of 2017
==========================================================
SHARADSHAKARLAL KAPADIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRUNAL J PATEL(7918) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 25/04/2023
ORAL ORDER
1.Heard learned advocate Mr. Mrunal J. Patel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Krutik Parikh for the respondent-State.
2.The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 14.03.2017 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) ['SSRD' for short] in Revision Application No. 3 of 2014. Page 1 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:26 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17363/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined
3.This Court issued the notice in this matter on 11.10.2017 and thereafter, the mater is adjourned from time-to-time. The petitioner has also preferred Civil Application (Fixing the date of early hearing) No. 1 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.11.2021 directing the Registry to list this petition after five weeks. Thereafter, vide order dated 08.03.2022, Civil Application No. 1 of 2021 was disposed of as the main matter was fixed for hearing.
4.This matter was heard by this Court on 18.04.2023. On that day, learned advocate for the petitioner prayed for time and therefore, this matter is kept today on top of the Board.
5.When the matter was called out, learned advocate Mr. Patel for the petitioner submitted that as learned Senior Advocate Page 2 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:26 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17363/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined Mr. Mehul Shah is appearing in the matter, the matter may be adjourned beyond vacation.
6.Considering the fact that the matter is pending for admission since 2017 and the petitioner has made application for fixing early date of hearing and considering the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged 74 years, this petition is taken up for hearing after giving an opportunity of hearing to learned advocate Mr. Patel appearing for the petitioner.
7.Learned advocate Mr. Patel has read the reasoning of the impugned order passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeal) ['SSRD' for short] and thereafter, did not make any further submission and requested for time so as to enable learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shah to appear in the matter.
Page 3 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:26 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17363/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined
8.Such request is rejected. On perusal of all the papers and documents produced on record, the following order is passed on merits:
9.Brief facts of the case are as under:
The petitioner was allotted Plot No. 22(B) admeasuring 400 sq.yards by the Collector, Dang situated at Saputara Hill Station.
According to the petitioner, allotment of the said plot No. 22(B) situated at City Survey No. 743 was cancelled on 29.06.1978 as lay out plan was not submitted within six months from the allotment and therefore the condition No.3 of the allotment was violated.
10. The cancellation order dated 29.06.1978 shows that notices were issued between the period 1972 and 1978 with different dates but such notices were not served upon the petitioner.
Page 4 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:26 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17363/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined
11. The petitioner therefore, challenged the order of cancellation dated 29.06.1978 before the SSRD by preferring Revision Application No. 141 of 1978. According to the petitioner, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his advocate, an ex parte order was passed on 06.06.1980 by the SSRD rejecting the revision application.
12. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of cancellation of the Plot No. 22(B) in the year 1978, the State Government did not provide primary facilities of Electricity, Water, Proper Road Assistance, Drainage system etc. and therefore, it was not possible to comply with the Condition No.3 to submit the lay out plan by the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner made application for re-grant of the plot which Page 5 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:26 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17363/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined was cancelled and confirmed by the SSRD by the order dated 06.06.1980.
13. The petitioner thereafter made an application on 01.08.1998 to the Information Broadcasting and Tourism Department, Gandhinagar, to regrant the subject plot. The petitioner was called for hearing by the Information Broadcasting and Tourism Department vide notice dated 04.08.1998.
14. The petitioner has also relied upon the decision rendered by this Court on 22.03.2000 in Special Civil Application No. 466 of 2000 in case of State of Gujarat vs Janakkumar Mafatlal Patel through POA Becharbhai Vaniram wherein, the order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department allowing the revision application observing that plot should be allowed only after primary facilities like Road, water, Page 6 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:26 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17363/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined Electricity and Drainage are provided or time limit for construction should be computed only after such facilities are provided, was challenged by the State Government which was was rejected by this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
15. It appears that the petitioner has preferred an application under Order 27 Rule 5B of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 for entering into compromise with Respondents to re-grant the plot No. 22(B) which was allotted to the petitioner in view of such re-grant being made to other similarly situated persons. The said application was disposed of by order dated 12.02.2009 by the Court requesting the APP and DGP to finalize the matter and also take necessary instruction for compromise from the concerned authority.
Page 7 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:26 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17363/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined
16. The petitioner has thereafter preferred various applications under the Right to Information Act.
17. The respondent-Collector by order dated 18.03.2014 rejected application of the petitioner for re-grant and the petitioner therefore being aggrieved by such order/letter dated 18.03.2014 preferred Revision Application No. 3 of 2014 before the SSRD. The SSRD, after taking into consideration the facts of the case as well as the submissions made by the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the earlier revision application filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 29.06.1978 was dismissed by SSRD vide order dated 06.06.1980 and thereafter representations made by the petitioner were also not taken into consideration by the respondent-authority. It Page 8 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:26 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17363/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined was therefore observed by the SSRD that once the order dated 29.06.1978 is already confirmed by the SSRD vide order dated 06.06.1980, further prayer of the petitioner to re-grant plot No. 22(B) which was allotted to the father of the petitioner in 1972 is rightly not considered by the Collector in view of the fact that the said plot is required to be allotted by holding public auction only and therefore, the same could not have been allotted by re-grant.
18. Learned AGP Mr. Parikh has also referred to and relied upon the following averments in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3-Collector, Ahwa, Dang, which fortifies the facts and the decision taken by the SSRD as under:
"7. It is submitted that by way of the present petition, the petitioner has made an attempt to challenge the order passed in 1980 and 1998 by the Ld. SSRD whereby the order of allotment made in favour of Page 9 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:26 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17363/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined the father of the petitioner had been cancelled. Although, the petitioner had made various representations before the authority for re-grant of subject land but in view of G.R. dated 1992, only way of allotment is by way of auction.
8. It is submitted that the petitioner has relied upon order passed by this Hon'ble Court in SCA 466/2000 wherein the order of Ld. SSRD quashing the order of Ld. Collector qua cancellation of allotment was upheld. It is submitted that the facts are different from the present case in as much as in the present case, allotment was cancelled in the year 1978 by the Ld. Collector and confirmed by the Ld. SSRD in 1980. It is also submitted that the subject land in SCA 466 of 2000 and in the present case are situated at different places. The petitioner tried to re-agitate his case again after the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in SCA 466 of 2000 without challenging any earlier orders before this Hon'ble Court.
9. It is submitted that the petitioner has relied upon an order passed in Review Civil Misc. Appeal no. 21 of 2008 passed by the Ld. Fast Track Judge, Ahwa dated 12.02.2009 but the petitioner has intentionally not produced an order passed in execution petition below Exe.R/4/2010 dated 27.03.2012 which came to be rejected with cost of Rs. 5000/-. Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-5 is a copy of order dated 27.03.2012.Page 10 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:26 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17363/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined
10.It is submitted that for the reasons best known to the petitioner herein communication dated 18.03.2014 came to be challenged under the revisional jurisdiction before the Ld. SSRD, the said application came to be rejected primarily on count of non-existence of policy qua re-grant in the Saputara area, Therefore the order passed by the Ld. SSRD is just and proper."
19. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and after taking into consideration the facts of the case, it is apparent that the challenge to the cancellation of the grant of Plot No. 22(B) made by the petitioner was over way back in the year 1980 and since then the efforts made by the petitioner, time and again for re- grant have failed. In such circumstances, SSRD has rightly rejected the Revision Application No. 3 of 2014 by the impugned order. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 466 of 2000 cannot be taken into consideration as the facts are Page 11 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:26 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17363/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined different than that of the facts of the present case inasmuch as in this case the allotment was cancelled in the year 1978 which was confirmed by the SSRD in the year 1980 whereas in the facts of the case before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 466 of 2000 land was situated at different place and orders passed by the SSRD were not interfered with by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the reliance placed by the petitioner upon the said order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application NO. 466 of 2000 would not help.
20. The petitioner has also not produced the order passed in Execution Petition No. 4 of 2000 dated 27.03.2012 which was rejected with cost of Rs. 5000/- which is available at Annexure R5 along with affidavit-in-reply Page 12 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:26 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17363/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined filed by the respondent No.3-Collector. Moreover, the Government Resolution dated 18.04.1992 provides that the earlier Government Resolution dated 10.12.1970 is cancelled and the land at Saputara Hill Station is to be allotted only on the basis of the public auction as per the Annexure to the said resolution.
21. In view of the above facts and for the foregoing reasons, the petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) JYOTI V. JANI Page 13 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:26 IST 2023