Gujarat High Court
Deepsinh Rupsinh Thakore vs State Of Gujarat on 31 July, 2018
Author: C.L. Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
C/SCA/11034/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11034 of 2018
==========================================================
DEEPSINH RUPSINH THAKORE
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SN SHELAT SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MRS VD NANAVATI(1206)
WITH MR CJ GOGDA for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
MR RONAK RAVALAGP (99) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 31/07/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. In the present petition, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Raval who appeared on advance copy for respondents was asked to take instruction. Yesterday, it was stated before the Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that he has taken instruction in the matter.
2. Considering the nature of the prayer made in the petition, the Court finds that the petition is required to be heard for final disposal. Hence, RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Mr.Raval waives service of rule for the respondents. The matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned advocates for the parties.
3. Following are the prayers made in para-8 of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/11034/2018 ORDER petition.
B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order of the respondent no.2
- Collector, Ahmedabad, which is at Annexure - D (Colly.) and consider the application dated 21.05.2017 and 18.06.2018 favourably at Annexure - D (Colly.) for Non- Agriculture Use Permission.
C. Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 - Collector, Ahmedabad to favourably consider the application dated 21.05.2017 and 18.06.2018 at Annexure - D (Colly.) for Non-Agriculture Use Permission.
D. That any other and/or further relief that may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the present petition may please be granted, in the interest of justice.
4. It appears that in the proceedings arising out of the order passed on application under Section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (ULC Act), the original owner of the land bearing survey no.830, Vejalpur which is now the land from final plot no.62 of T.P. - 25, Vejalpur sought direction by filing Special Civil Application No.9286 of 2006 to remove the name of the State Government from the record of rights for the land in question and to enter his name. Such petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.04.2006. However, on challenge being made to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, by the original owner by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.1373 of 2006, the Court accepted the claim made by the original owner by allowing the Appeal and directed the State Government to enter the name of the legal heirs of the original owner in the revenue record for the land in question and such order was directed to be executed within four months. It was, thereafter, the petitioner purchased the land in question by registered sale deed dated 06.05.2016. The petitioner then applied for grant of N.A. Permission for the use of the land for commercial purpose under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Page 2 of 5 C/SCA/11034/2018 ORDER Code (the Code). In such application, the petitioner mentioned the measurement of the land in question as 2853 sq.mtrs. It appears that the application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 31.03.2018 mainly on the two grounds; one was that the petitioner had applied for grant of N.A. Permission for more land than the land given to him and the second was that the land in question was included in the list of surplus land as per the record of the ULC. After such order was made by the District Collector, the petitioner again applied on 18.06.2018 to reconsider his decision by requesting to grant N.A. Permission for land admeasuring 2089 sq.mtrs. Such application has remained pending and as on today, no decision is taken thereon.
5. Learned senior advocate Mr.Shelat appearing with learned advocate Ms.Nanavati for the petitioner submitted that since there was mistake committed in earlier application filed under Section 65 of the Code of mentioning 2853 sq.mtrs. of land instead of 2089 sq.mtrs., the petitioner applied again to the District Collector to reconsider his decision for land admeasuring 2089 sq.mtrs. Mr.Shelat submitted that the land in question could not have been considered as surplus after the order in above Letters Patent Appeal was made by this Court. Mr.Shelat submitted that now for no valid reason, the Collector has kept the application pending. Mr.Shelat submitted that in fact, in absence of any restraint order from the Higher forum not to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of N.A. Permission, the District Collector was required to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law, when the petitioner is occupant and the owner of the land in question.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Raval when was asked as to what objection remains against the consideration of the application made by the petitioner for grant of N.A. Permission, he Page 3 of 5 C/SCA/11034/2018 ORDER fairly stated, under the instructions, that after the petitioner made correction in measurement of the land in question, no objection remains against consideration of his application. Mr.Raval, however, submitted that against the order made by this Court in the above referred Letters Patent Appeal, the Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed, but now the respondents propose to make review application and, therefore, the Court may not, presently, consider the petition for issuing any direction to the District Collector to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of N.A. Permission.
7. The Court having heard learned advocates finds that in fact, as stated above there remains no objection for not considering the application of the petitioner for grant of N.A. Permission under Section 65 of the Code. The only stand taken on behalf of the respondents is that the respondents propose to file review application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in disposed of the Special Leave Petition. The Court finds that such is no ground at all for not considering the application of the petitioner for grant of N.A. Permission. Undisputably, there is no restraint order from any Higher Authority or from the Higher Court against consideration of the application of the petitioner for grant of N.A. Permission. Simply because the review application is proposed to be filed by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is no ground to keep the application for N.A. Permission pending. In such view of the matter, the Court finds that respondent no.2 - Collector is required to be directed to take decision on the application of the petitioner for grant of N.A. Permission at the earliest ignoring and irrespective of his earlier decision dated 31.03.2018.
8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.2 - Collector to decide the application of the petitioner for grant of N.A. Permission in accordance with the Page 4 of 5 C/SCA/11034/2018 ORDER provision of Section 65 of the Code ignoring and irrespective of his earlier decision dated 31.03.2018 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Direct service is permitted.
(C.L. SONI, J) Vijay Page 5 of 5