Gujarat High Court
Chandubhai Valjibhai Pandya Thro Gpo ... vs State Of Gujarat & on 12 January, 2015
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/SCA/15629/2012 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15629 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
CHANDUBHAI VALJIBHAI PANDYA THRO GPO HOLDER & 1....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ANAND R PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
MR MANAN MEHTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 12/01/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr.Anand Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Manan Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
Page 1 of 5C/SCA/15629/2012 JUDGMENT
2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.04.2012 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), in Revision Application No.MVV/JMN/SBR/38/2009, whereby the Secretary was pleased to confirm the decision/order taken by Collector, Sabarkantha dated 09.02.2009.
3. The relevant facts emerging from the record of the petition are as under:
That the father of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and husband of petitioner No.1 was allotted the land bearing Plot No.211/2, admeasuring 18211 Sq.Mtrs., situated at Village Nadripethapur, Taluka Himmatnagar, District Sabarkantha under Section 29 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act, 1960. It appears from the record of the petition that on allotment of the land in question, entry being Entry No.1071 came to be mutated exhibiting the order of allotment order dated 20.09.1988, which is also certified by the competent authority of the State Government on basis of the conditions, which are part and parcel of the order dated 20.09.1988. It further appears that the names of the petitioners came to be mutated vide Entry No.1368 on demise of the original allottee viz. Shri Valjibhai Veljibhai. The said entry also came to be certified on 10.09.2003. By application dated
04.07.2007, the petitioners through their Power of Attorney approached Collector Sabarkantha, for permission of transfer the land as provided under Section 30 of the Act. The said application came to be Page 2 of 5 C/SCA/15629/2012 JUDGMENT rejected vide order dated 09.02.2009. The said communication was challenged by way of filing revision before the Secretary (Appeals), which came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.04.2012. Both the aforesaid orders are impugned in this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of this petition. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the provisions of Section 30 of the Act clearly provides that the sanction can be granted on conditions, which are part of the said provisions, by the Collector and when the original allottee of the land, who is allotted the land under Section 29 of the Act, desired to transfer such land. It was further submitted that both the authorities on wrong presumption and on wrong interpretation of Section 30 of the Act and has without assigning any reason, declined to even consider the application filed by the petitioners dated 07.04.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that before the decision was taken by the Collector, no opportunity of being heard to the petitioners or even placing the case of the petitioners was afforded by the Collector and therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed as prayed for.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader has supported both the orders and contended that both the authorities have considered the provisions of the Act and has passed appropriate orders. Therefore, no Page 3 of 5 C/SCA/15629/2012 JUDGMENT interference is called for and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Upon considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the orders, it transpire that by an application dated 04.07.2007, the petitioners approached Collector, Sabarkantha for sanction as provided under Section 30 of the Act and only one reason has been assigned by both the authorities viz. to the effect that there is no provision for such sanction. On bare reading of the orders, this Court is of the opinion that both the authorities have not considered the application filed by the petitioners properly and the only reason, which is assigned is not as per the provisions of Section 30 of the Act.
7. In light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice would be served if the impugned orders dated 07.04.2012 and 09.02.2009 passed by the Secretary and Collector, Sabarkantha are quashed and set aside and the proceedings of the application dated 04.07.2007 filed by the petitioners before Collector, Sabarkantha is hereby restored and the proceedings of the said application are remanded back for a fresh decision on merits. It would be open for the petitioners to file any further submissions on facts as well as the law before the Collector. The petitioners shall file such submission on, or before, 06th February, 2015. The Collector after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and Page 4 of 5 C/SCA/15629/2012 JUDGMENT after considering the submissions, if any, made by the petitioners, shall decide the application denovo on its own merits and pass an appropriate order without in any manner being influenced by any of the observations made in the earlier orders as well as present order.
8. In view of the fact that the application is dated 04.07.2007, the Collector shall decide the same as observed in this order as expeditiously as possible.
The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) Suchit Page 5 of 5