Gujarat High Court
Vajyaben Gopalbhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 29 April, 2019
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
C/SCA/7937/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7937 of 2018
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7954 of 2018
=========================================
VAJYABEN GOPALBHAI RATHOD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 others
=========================================
Appearance :
MR. BHAUMIK DHOLARIYA for the Petitioner.
MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
MR ADITYA J. PANDYA FOR DEVANGI B SOLANKI for the Respondent
Nos.4,5,6,7
=========================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 29/04/2019
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Draft amendment is allowed. To be carried out forthwith.
2. Rule. Ms. Divyangna Jhala, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Aditya J. Pandya, learned advocate appearing for Devangi B. Solanki waives service of rule for respondent Nos.4 to 7. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal today itself.
3. By way of these two writ petitions preferred under Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 21, 227 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside communication dated 12/20.4.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 and has prayed to allow application dated 27.9.2017 of the Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 13:15:12 IST 2019 C/SCA/7937/2018 ORDER petitioners. By the said order, the request of the petitioners to make corrections in the record to rectify the possession of the petitioners and insert Survey No.60 as allotted land instead of Survey No.61 paiki was rejected by the Deputy Collector, Olpad Prant, Surat.
4. The short facts arise from the record are as under :-
5. That the private respondents Nos.4 to 7 were owners and in occupation of agricultural land bearing Survey No.61 of Mouje Kanyasi, Tal. Olpad, Dist. Surat. Pursuant to the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 and vide order dated 16.12.2009, the Deputy Collector, Olpad Prant, Surat allotted part of the land bearing Survey No.61 paiki to the petitioners of both the present petitions. On the said day, the petitioners of both the petitions were put in possession of the land in question. Thereafter, the petitioners developed the land. Thereafter, it came to the knowledge of the petitioners that inadvertently, possession of land bearing Survey No.60 was handed over to the petitioners of both these petitions instead of Survey No.61 paiki. Hence, the petitioners made application dated 27.9.2017 to the respondent No.2 to make corrections in the record to rectify the possession of the petitioners and insert Survey No.60 as allotted land instead of Survey No.61 paiki. The said request of the petitioners was rejected by order dated 12/20.4.2018.
6. Hence these petitions.
7. In pursuance to the notice issued by this Court, the private respondents appeared through learned advocate Mr. Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 13:15:12 IST 2019 C/SCA/7937/2018 ORDER Devangi B. Solanki and the State authorities appeared through learned Assistant Government Pleader and filed affidavit-in-reply.
8. Mr. Bhaumik Dholariya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that each petitioner was granted 4198 Sq. Mts. of land of Survey No.61 paiki to carry out agricultural activities vide order dated 16.12.2009 of the Deputy Collector, Olpad Prant, Surat. The possession was also given to the petitioners. However, it was ultimately found that inadvertently, possession of Survey No.60 was given to the petitioners instead of Survey No.61 paiki which land belonged to the private respondents herein. Therefore, request was made by the petitioners to the respondent No.2 to correct the revenue record. However, the said request was turned down.
9. He would further submit that the petitioners have developed the land and are in possession of Survey No.60. Similarly, private respondents who were owners of Survey Nos.60 and 61 paiki have also developed their part of land and they have no objection if the revenue record is corrected as prayed by the petitioners. He, therefore, would submit that appropriate order may be passed.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Aditya J. Pandya, learned advocate appearing for Devangi B. Solanki for respondent Nos.4 to 7 submits that the private respondents have no objection if the revenue record is corrected.
11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jhala appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the request of the petitioners Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 13:15:12 IST 2019 C/SCA/7937/2018 ORDER though they have settled the matter with the private respondents. She would further submit that it would be transfer of lands amongst the petitioners and the private respondents and, therefore, such transfer is to be treated in accordance with law. She, therefore, would submit that the petitions be dismissed.
12. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the impugned order as well as the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respective respondents.
13. During the pendency of the present petitions, on 26.12.2018, following order was passed :-
"1. The District Inspector Land Record, Olpad is hereby directed to visit the disputed land and shall report to the office of Mamlatdar, Olpad and shall also clarify that who is in possession of Survey No.60 and Survey No.61 of Village:Kanyasi, Taluka: Olpad, Dist: Surat respectively. If the authority finds substance in the petitions and even otherwise the parties have amicably settled the matter with regard to possession of the property as well as ownership of the property.
2. The Mamlatdar, Olpad is hereby directed to mutate the entries accordingly.
3. Stand over to 22.02.2019. Copy of this order shall be handed over to the learned AGP Mr. L.B. Dabhi.Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 13:15:12 IST 2019 C/SCA/7937/2018 ORDER
4. Affidavit to that effect shall be filed before the next date of hearing. Direct service is permitted"
14. Pursuant to the said order, the officer from the District Inspector of Land Record had visited the lands in question and prepared a map which is produced on record. The said map suggests that instead of giving possession of Survey No.61 paiki, the respondent No.2 had given possession of Survey No.60 to the petitioners and they are carrying out agricultural activities since their allotment in the year 2009.
15. Considering the above fact that the authority had handed over possession of land bearing Survey No.60 instead of Survey No.61 paiki as per their own order and when the petitioners have developed the land and when there is no objection by the private respondents, I am of the opinion that the petitions require consideration and hence, the same are allowed. The impugned communication dated 12/20.4.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside in both the petitions. The respondents are hereby directed to make corrections in the revenue record to rectify the possession of the petitioners and insert Survey No.60 as allotted land instead of Survey No.61 paiki of Mouje Kanyasi, Tal. Olpad, Dist. Surat forthwith and accordingly make fresh entry recording possession and ownership in the revenue record. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(A.J.DESAI, J) SAVARIYA Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 13:15:12 IST 2019