Patel Vinubhai Nathabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 23 July, 2018

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Patel Vinubhai Nathabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 23 July, 2018

Bench: C.L. Soni

           C/SCA/10950/2018                                            ORDER




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10950 of 2018

==========================================================
                              PATEL VINUBHAI NATHABHAI
                                        Versus
                                 STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HARDIK K RAVAL(6366) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MS NISHA THAKOR AGP (99) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI

                                   Date : 23/07/2018

                                    ORAL ORDER

1. By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.06.2016 passed by the Deputy Collector in Case No.4 of 2016, the order dated 28.08.2017 passed by the Collector in Case No.12 of 2016 and the order passed by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No.20 of 2017 filed by the petitioner.

2. It appears that after the petitioner was allotted plot admeasuring 116.12.68 sq.mtrs. from the gamtal land pursuant to the auction proceedings, the private respondents challenged the allotment of the plot in favour of the petitioner on the different grounds including that the plot allotted to the petitioner is part of the village road. It appears that based on the grievance raised against the plot allotted to the petitioner, the reports from the different authorities including from the DILR were called for to find whether the plot allotted to the petitioner was forming part of the Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/10950/2018 ORDER road or not. After such reports were received, the impugned orders were made on consideration of the reports for cancelling the plot allotted to the petitioner.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Raval for the petitioner submitted that in fact, after the order for allotment of the plot was made, the boundaries were fixed for the plot allotted to the petitioner. He submitted that the private respondents who opposed the allotment of the plot to the petitioner had grudged against the petitioner and they even filed civil suit. He submitted that the petitioner has not encroached upon any other plot under the guise of the allotment of the plot made to him. He submitted that since, the petitioner was highest bidder in the auction proceedings, the petitioner became entitled to allotment of the plot and though, the plot is not forming part of the public road, the petitioner is being deprived of his right to continue with the allotment of the plot in question.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Thakor, on the other hand, submitted that after the order for allotment of the plot was made in favour of the petitioner, it was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities that the plot alloted to the petitioner was forming part of the village road and, therefore, the reports from the concerned authorities were called for to find whether the plot allotted to the petitioner was forming part of the road or not. She drew the attention of the Court to the findings recorded by the Collector in his order passed in revision application filed by the petitioner to point out that the Collector has recorded the finding on the basis of the measurement sheet prepared by the office of the DILR and verification done by the Deputy Collector as the plot was found to be forming part of the road as separately marked in the measurement sheet prepared by the DILR.

Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/10950/2018 ORDER

5. The Court having heard learned advocates finds that though the petitioner was the auction purchaser for the allotted to him, however, the office of the DILR, as also the Deputy Collector, on inquiry, found that the plot allotted to the petitioner was forming part of the road. Based on the reports placed before the Collector, the Collector and the Collector in his order dated 28.08.2017 passed in Case No.12 of 2016 has recorded that the plot allotted to the petitioner is forming part of the road. The Collector has also observed that through the plot allotted to the petitioner, the rain water from Gamtal passes and the plot is being used by the farmers of the village as a way to reach their fields. The Collector, therefore, did not interfere with the order made by the Deputy Collector whereby the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The Additional Secretary, having perused the record especially the reports of the DILR and reasoning of the Deputy Collector and also having considered that at least 20 agriculturists of the village have access to their fields through the plot allotted to the petitioner, found that the Deputy Collector and the Collector committed no error in cancelling the plot allotted to the petitioner. The Court finds that the authorities below having recorded the findings that the plot allotted to the petitioner forms part of the village road which is being used by the village people to go to their fields and even the rain water of the Gamtal passes through the plot, no interference is called for in the impugned orders of the authorities below by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is, therefore, rejected.

(C.L. SONI, J) Vijay Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court