Gujarat High Court
Anilkumar vs State on 26 June, 2012
Author: R.M. Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/16231/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16231 of 2011
=========================================================
ANILKUMAR
CHATRABHUJ JAVIA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THRO THE SECRETARY & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
SANDEEP N BHATT for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RONAK B RAWAL, AGP. for Respondent(s) :
1-2
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date
: 26/06/2012
ORAL
ORDER
1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Collector, Bhavnagar, dated 1.7.2001 and confirmed by Secretary, Revenue (Appeals) in Revision Application No. MVV/JMN/BVN/23/2002 dated 1.7.2001.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner intends to start Salt Works. It appears from the record that the petitioner applied for grant of waste land of Revenue Survey No. 67/1 paiki of mouje Savainagar, Taluka District Bhavnagar for establishing Salt Works. By order dated 1.7.2001 the District Collector, Bhavnagar rejected such application on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the land bearing Survey No. 67/1 paiki was reserved for outstees of Narmada Project and the secondly on the ground that Gram Panchayat has not given consent for the same as the land bearing Survey No. 67/1 paiki was required for extension of gamtal. The aforesaid decision of the District Collector was challenged by filing Revision Application as contemplated under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the Secretary, Revenue (Appeals) by impugned order dated 1.7.2011 rejected the same. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. In response to the notice issued by this Court the Mamlatdar, Bhavnagar (Rural) has filed Affidavit-in-Reply. It is categorically averred in the Affidavit-in-Reply that Panchayat has not given consent for the allotment of the land in question and even that the villagers have filed Civil Suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 81 of 2002 against grant of such land to any other persons. However, it is the case of the respondent authorities that the other persons who have been granted land is of different nature. However, considering the reasons of the impugned order it goes without saying that the petitioner has no inherent right to get any land from the respondent authorities as well as the respondent authorities are also duty bound to follow their own resolutions which are forming part of this petition. As far as the orders impugned are concerned, Mr. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any error, it being a finding of fact this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for.
4. Mr. Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner desires to file separate application for another land in surrounding area where it may be found suitable for establishing Salt Works. It would be open for the petitioner to file any such application as the impugned orders only relate to earlier application filed in 2001 i.e. Survey No. 67/1 paiki of Savainagar, Taluka District Bhavnagar. As aforesaid, there is no error apparent on the concurrent finding of the authorities below. Hence, the petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed in limine. Notice discharged.
5. However, it would be open for the petitioner to apply again. If any such application is filed before the authorities, it is expected that the authorities shall deal with the same in accordance with law without being influenced by the fact that the earlier application qua Survey No. 67/1 paiki of village Savainagar, Taluka District Bhavnagar is rejected and confirmed by this Court.
Sd/-
(R.M. Chhaya, J.) M.M.BHATT Top