Gujarat High Court
Integrated Proteins Ltd vs State Of Gujarat on 6 September, 2022
C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4079 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
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 or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
INTEGRATED PROTEINS LTD.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MEET THAKKAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MR HASIT H JOSHI(2480) for the Respondent(s) No.
6.1,6.10,6.10.1,6.10.2,6.10.3,6.10.4,6.2,6.3,6.4,6.5,6.6,6.6.1,6.6.2,6.6.3,6.6.4,
6.6.5,6.7,6.8,6.9
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 06/09/2022
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned AGP Mr.Meet Thakkar waives service of notice of rule for respondent no.1. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw waives service of notice of rule Page 1 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 for respondent nos.2 to 4 and learned advocate Mr.Hasit Joshi for respondent nos.6.1 to 6.10.
2. This petition is filed for the following prayers :
9(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned decision dtd. 04.01.2018 communicated vide communication dtd. 12.01.2018 passed by respondent no.3 in Panchayat-4/Work/Appeal/16-20 of 2018 in a meeting of the Appellate Committee held on 04.01.2018 (Annexure `A') as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the settled legal position, without jurisdiction, without competence, discriminatory, violative of principles of natural justice as also violative of Art.14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India in the interest of justice.
(AA) Your Lordships be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 8.3.2018 passed by Deputy District Development Officer, Jamnagar (as communicated vide communication dated 15.3.2018 by respondent no.4) as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified, and only with a view to make the proceedings a futile exercise, in the interest of justice and equity and further be pleased to restore the entry of the petitioner in village form no.2 of the subject lands in the interest of justice and equity. Page 2 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022
C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the implementation, execution, operation of the impugned decision dtd. 04.01.2018 communicated vide communication dtd.12.01.2018 passed by respondent no.3 in Panchayat-4/Work/Appeal/16-20 of 2018 in a meeting of the Appellate Committee held on 04.01.2018, pending the hearing, admission and final disposal of the hearing, admission and final disposal of this petition in the interest of justice and equity;
(BB) Your Lordships be pleased to stay the implementation, execution of the impugned order dated 8.3.2018 passed by the Deputy District Development Officer, Jamnagar (as communicated vide communication dated 15.3.2018 by respondent no.4) and further be pleased to direct respondent no.5 to restore the entry of the petitioner in village form No.2 in respect of subject lands, pending hearing admission and final disposal of the present petition in the interest of justice and equity.
(C) xxxxxx"
3. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as under :
3.1 That the petitioner is in lawful possession and occupation of the subject land since 1994-95 and Page 3 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 construction put up by the petitioner is in existence even as on date as is evident from the photographs annexed with the petition. The petitioner, alongwith other various parcels of land including land bearing survey no.3 total admeasuring 44437.60 sq.mtrs. stuated at village Dhinchda, Taluka and District Jamnagar was owned and occupied by one Jaku Noormamad and family members.
It also transpires that the respondent no.2-authority has granted permission vide order dated 17.10.1994 for non- agricultural use. It is also transpired from the petition that the original owner respondent no.5 along with other family members executed power of attorney in favour of Varinda Nandshanker Dave for the purpose of dealing with the subject land in favour of the petitioner and accordingly nine plots from the subject land were transferred in favour of the petitioner by different registered sale deeds. Accordingly, on the basis of the registered sale deeds of all the nine plots, entry came to be mutated in village form no.2 vide entry no.197/1 to 197/2 dated 18.4.1995 and 19.4.1997 respectively in favour of the petitioner. It is also revealed from the petition that the petitioner, in the year 1994-95, has constructed and established solvent plant on the subject Page 4 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 land and at the relevant point of time, as there was some irregular construction on plot nos.1 to 3, same was regularized by Jamnagar Area Development Authroity vide order dated 11.9.1995 on certain conditions. 3.2 It appears from the petition that in the year 2007, one of the legal heir of original land owner i.e. daughter of Jaku Noormamad filed Regular Civil Suit No.482 of 2007 seeking partition of share and rights in the subject land which was already sold long back by way of registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1994-95. However, the petitioner is not joined th as party to the suit proceedings and the learned 5 Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar vide order dated 31.12.2012 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.482 of 2007, dismissed the suit. From the judgment of the suit, it transpires that at the relevant time, there is admission made by the respondent no.6 herein in the said suit that subject land is already sold to the petitioner by registered sale deed. Thereafter, the petitioner has also filed Regular Civil Suit No.310 of 2008 which was subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner. 3.3 Meanwhile, after a delay of more than 19 Page 5 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 years, it appears that respondent no.6-Haji Jaku Noormammad Kakal through his new Power of Attorney holder Anwar Abdulsattar Kakal, filed application dated 1.2.2016 seeking cancellation of entry mutated in village form no.2 which is recorded in favour of the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note at this stage that except respondent no.6, no other legal heirs have raised any such grievance including the grievance of non-service of Section 135D notice and have not challenged the entry mutated in favour of the petitioner. The Mamlatdar (Rural), vide communication dated 8.6.2016, returned the application of the respondent no.6 on the ground that no Power of Attorney is produced on record. Moreover, as per notification dated 16.4.2015, application seeking cancellation of entry in village form no.2 vests with the Gram Panchayat.
3.4 Thereafter, it appears that the application was made by respondent no.6 to the respondent no.5-Gram Panchayat wherein, Panchayat was pleased to issue notice to the petitioner and petitioner has filed its reply. Thereafter, the respondent no.5-Gram Panchayat vide resolution/order dated 6.1.2017 observed that entry mutated in favour of the petitioner is on the basis of Page 6 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 the registered sale deed and neither these sale deeds are challenged before any Civil Court nor cancelled by any competent Civil Court and it is also recorded that there is admission of sale transactions in favour of the petitioner by the objector in Regular Civil Suit No.482 of 2007. Therefore, entries mutated in village form no.2 in favour of the petitioner cannot be cancelled. 3.5 It is further transpired that being aggrieved by order dated 6.1.2017 passed by respondent no.5, respondent no.6 approached respondent no.3-appellate authority by way of appeal interalia contending that the order passed by Gram Panchayat is without examining the record and without verifying the registered sale deeds. It appears that the Appellate Committee, in a meeting held on 4.1.2018, vide resolution no.4 resolved that from perusal of the report dated 1.1.2018 submitted by Taluka Development Officer, it appears that original sale deeds are with the Registrar of Stamps for deficit stamp duty and therefore, no original documents were produced before the authority while mutation of entry and therefore considering that the appeal is also preferred against the judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.482 of 2007, the decision of Gram Page 7 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 Panchayat dated 6.1.2017 is required to be reconsidered. 3.6 Therefore, being aggrieved by the decision of Appellate Committee by order dated 4.1.2018 which is communicated on 12.1.2018 to the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred the present petition on the ground that the entire exercise of power exercised by Appellate Committee under the Gujarat Village Panchayat Village Site Property (Mode of Making Mutation Entry in the Occupancy Right) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as `Rules of 2015') is wholly misconceived and without jurisdiction in view of the fact that vide notification dated 14.2.2006, the respondent no.1 declared list of survey numbers of revenue villages to be specified as per Larger Urban Areas to be included within the limits of city of Jamnagar. Pursuant to the same, the land bearing revenue survey numbers including survey no.3 i.e. the subject land situated at village Dhinchda is also included within the limits of the city of Jamnagar. Therefore, considering Rule 3 of Rules of 2015, it is clear that these rules does not apply to the subject land as Rule 3 categorically provides that Rules of 2015 shall be applicable only to those revenue villages in which city survey has not come in force and on Page 8 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 implementation of city survey in those villages, application of these rules will suo motu come to an end and the record will come in existence as per the provisions of The Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') about the city survey.
3.7 During the pendency of this petition, draft amendment was moved to bring certain events on record. The draft amendment was granted vide order dated 20.3.2018 which reads as under:
"1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.R.S.Sanjanwala with Mr.Premal Rachh for the petitioner.
2. Considering the development which took place during the pendency of the petition, Draft Amendment is taken on record and the same shall be carried out within two days from today.
3. In view of Rule-3 of Notification dated 16.04.2015, Notice as to interim relief, returnable on 04.04.2018.
4. In the meantime, it would be open for the petitioner to request the authority to reflect the number of present petition on revenue record and the challenge contain therein before the authority who gave effect to the entry subsequent to the earlier order dated 04.01.2018.
5. In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain Page 9 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 status-quo with regard to the land in question.
6. Direct service is permitted."
3.8 Accordingly, the amendment was carried out and it is revealed that the Taluka Development Officer, Jamnagar vide communication dated 3.3.2018 addressed to the Deputy District Development Officer, Jamnagar that the entry mutated in favour of the petitioner is on the basis of the registered sale transaction, which cannot be set aside or disturbed. Further, it is also communicated that in view of notification dated 14.2.2006, land bearing survey no.3 is included within the limits of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation and therefore the panchayat authority has no power or authority to pass any orders or initiate any proceedings in respect of the subject land. Thereafter, it seems that the Deputy District Development Officer, Jamnagar directed the Taluka Development Officer, Jamnagar on 8.3.2018 to implement the decision dated 4.1.2018 of the Appellate Committee within two days. Accordingly, the Taluka Development Officer, vide communication dated 15.3.2018, directed the respondent no.5 to delete the entry in village form no.2 and post the name of original land owner and report to the authority within two days. Page 10 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 Consequently, the entry posted in favour of the petitioner on the basis of registered sale deed, came to be deleted and name of respondent no.6 and other family members came to be posted in village form no.2. Hence, this petition.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rachh for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr.Meet Thakkar for respondent no.1, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for respondent nos.2 to 4 and learned advocate Mr.Hasit Joshi for respondent nos. 6.1 to 6.10.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Rachh has submitted that it is apparent that from 2006 onwards, subject land is not within the ambit and purview of village survey numbers so as to apply the Rules of 2015 and therefore, the exercise of power by the Appellate Committee and the impugned decision is without jurisdiction, more particularly, in view of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2015. It is also averred by Mr.Rachh for the petitioner that the mutation entry was posted in the year 1996 in village form no.2 under the provisions of the Code and therefore the above mentioned Rules of the year 2015 cannot be made applicable retrospectively and Page 11 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 that too, to override the effect of past proceedings concluded under the Code. He further submitted that the impugned decision passed while entertaining the proceedings under the Rules of 2015 is wholly misconceived and liable to be quashed and set aside. 5.1 He further submitted that in view of Sections 135C and 135D of the Code and as observed in catena of decisions of this Court that revenue authorities are bound to make a mutation of entry on the basis of registered sale deed. He relied on the decision reported in the case of Balvantrai Ambaram Patel V/s State of Gujarat, reported in 2016(2) GLR 1786 and submitted that once the person purchases the land by virtue of registered sale deed, he is entitled to have his name mutated in revenue records. He further relied on the judgment in the case of Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy, District & Anrs. Vs/ D.Narsing Rao & Ors., reported in 2015(3) SCC 695 and submitted that the delay caused in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Page 12 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 5.2 He further submitted that in the present case, the entry mutated in the record of rights on the basis of registered sale deed is prior to 19 years and it cannot be set aside after a delay of 19 years. He has further submitted that it is also revealed from the judgment of the Civil Suit No.482 of 2007 which is filed by one of the family members without joining the present petitioner in that suit, the respondent no.6 herein has admitted that the suit land is sold to the present petitioner and therefore it appears that the present dispute is raised with some extraneous and oblique motive by another power of attorney holder of respondent no.6. 5.3 He, therefore, submitted that this petition is required to be allowed as respondent no.3-authority has erred in not considering the relevant provisions of Rules of 2015, more particularly, Rules 3 and 6 of the Rules of 2015, the delay and laches caused in initiating the proceedings after 19 years, and above all the conduct of the respondent no.6 who has admitted in the earlier suit that he has sold the land to the present petitioner and thereafter filed the said application for cancellation the mutation entry and the other heirs of the respondent no.6 have not made any grievance about the non-service Page 13 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 of notice under Section 135D of the Land Revenue Code at the relevant point 5.4 At this stage, Mr.Rachh has relied on the judgment of this Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1488 of 2018 in Special Civil Application No.636 of 2011 dated 4.5.2021 on the point of delay in exercising powers by the appellate authority.
6. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw appearing for the respondent nos.2 to 4 submitted that since the respondent no.6 has pointed out that there are lacunae as notice under Section 135D is not served on the respondent no.6 neither the respondent no.6 has contended that he has executed any power of attorney in favour of the earlier power of attorney who has executed sale deed in favour of the present petitioner. He has further submitted that since the other authorities have also given report including that at the relevant point of time, the sale deed of the present petitioner is lying before the stamp duty authority as no proper stamp duty is paid, even then the revenue authorities, in absence of original sale deed, have mutated the entries in village form no.2 at the relevant point of time and therefore he Page 14 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 has stated that in view of the Rules of 2015, the Appellate Committee has power to decide such appeal. 6.1 He has also relied on Section 274(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act read with Section 200(4) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1993 and submitted that when such rule is enacted under this above mentioned section, the respondent no.3-appellate authority has not committed any error in deciding the appeal which, as per the say of Mr.Munshaw, is decided in accordance with law.
6.2 He has further submitted that Talati-cum- Mantri Dhinchda Gram Panchayat as well as Taluka Development Officer, Jamnagar Taluka Panchayat had sent the remarks about the complaint made that Mr.Varinda Nandkishor Dave was bogus power of attorney and respondent no.6 has never executed power of attorney in favour of Mr. Varinda Dave and therefore the sale deed on the basis of this is found not tenable and therefore the revenue entry is required to be set aside which is entered on the basis of said sale deed. He has further submitted that the respondent authority Page 15 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 has not committed any error as respondent authority has exercised the power which is given under the powers of Gujarat Panchayats Act and Rules made thereunder and therefore he prays to dismiss the present petition as the petition is meritless.
7. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi appearing for heirs of respondent no.6 has also contended that the criminal complaint is filed on 28.5.2019 against earlier power of attorney by the heirs of present respondent no.6 before City `B' Division Police Station, Jamnagar for taking action. He has further submitted that the petitioner is to be considered as a land grabber and the respondent no.6 has also submitted application before the learned Collector under the Land Grabbing Act, 2020. He has further submitted that the Appellate Committee of the Panchayat has powers to hear and decide the appeals as the land in question is not yet included in the city limits of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation and therefore the contention raised by the petitioner about the Appellate Committee has no jurisdiction is erroneous. He has further submitted that in case of revocable power of attorney, the document is not valid after the death of Page 16 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 person who has given the authority to act on his behalf. The Power of Attorney is to be revocable if the principal has right to revoke power at any point of time. In this case, the power of attorney is not valid after the death of the principal and therefore the power of attorney since it is not registered and not proved by the petitioner before the competent authority or the board, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take benefit of such situation after the death of respondent no.6 and therefore he submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed as the petition has no merit.
8. Heard learned advocates for the parties, perused the material placed on record, perused the Rules of 2015 enacted under the Gujarat Panchayats Act,1993, perused the notification issued by the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar dated 14.2.2006, whereby the village Dhinchda and some of the plots are included in the existing limits of city of Jamnagar.
9. Rule 3 of the Rules of 2015 provides as under:
"3. These rules shall be applicable only to those revenue Page 17 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 villages in which city survey has not come in force and on implementation of city survey in those villages, application of these rules will suo motu come to an end and the record will come in existence as per provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 about city survey."
10. Rule 6 of the Rules of 2015 provides as under:
"6. (1) When the change in right of property is made due to any lawful reason of sale, heirship, will, order of the court etc., the application shall make the application to the secretary of a village panchayat for making mutation. (2) On receipt of the application, the secretary shall make entry with date in Form No.3 within maximum 7 days, which will be known as the provisional entry. (3) In Form No.3, in column of serial number, the number of entry shall be given consecutively as 1, 2, 3, 4 ..... On the day on which the provisional entry is made, the secretary shall send by Registered Post A.D., the notice in Form No.4 of these rules, along with a copy of the provisional entry to all persons affected. (4) If notice is not served by Registered Post A.D. due to any reason, it shall be served in person. If the concerned person refuses to accept notice in person, then in presence of Page 18 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 Panchas notice shall be served by pasting the notice on the door of the house of the person concerned.
(5) If there is any objection in respect of mutation, on receipt of the notice alongwith the provisional entry, the affected person concerned may submit written objections, so as to be received by Panchayat within 30 days."
11. In view of the notification dated 14.2.2006, whereby the village Dhinchda and some of the plots are included in the existing limits of city of Jamnagar, Rule 3 will come into play and, therefore, the Rules under which the Appellate Committee has exercised the power by passing a resolution or by taking impugned decision dated 4.1.2018 communicated on 12.1.2018 is per se is without jurisdiction and therefore is illegal.
12. It is also relevant to note that the said sale deed is executed between year 1995 to 1997 and revenue entries are also effected in the revenue record on 18.4.1995 and 19.4.1997 by entry nos. 197/1 to 197/9 in favour of the petitioner. It appears that in the year 2007, one of the legal heir of the original land owner i.e. daughter of Jaku Noormammad filed Regular Civil Suit Page 19 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 No.482 of 2007 where also the respondent no.6 has admitted that he has sold the land to the petitioner. Then, in the year 2016, one Anwar Abdulsattar Kakal, who is the new power of attorney of respondent no.6- Jaku Norrmammad preferred an application on 1.2.2016 seeking cancellation of entry mutated in village form. The said proceedings were initiated after a delay of almost 19 to 21 years, which cannot be permissible, considering the judgment of this Court relied on by learned advocate Mr.Rachh, learned advocate for the petitioner passed in LPA No.1488 of 2018, wherein this Court has considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah V/s Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, reported in 2012(5) SCC 157, Postmaster General and Ors. V/s Living Media India Ltd. And Anr. reported in 2012(3) SCC 563 and State of Gujarat V/s Patel Raghav Natha and Ors., reported in 1969(1) GLR 992 and held that the delay of 15 years caused in taking action by the appellate authority is barred by delay and laches.
13. In view of the above decision, in the present case also, the delay is occurred in initiating the Page 20 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 proceedings of almost 19 to 21 years after revenue entry is made in the year 1995 and 1997 respectively and therefore also, the impugned decision of the appellate authority is invalid.
14. Further, looking to the conduct of the respondent no.6 who has admitted that he has sold the land to the present petitioner in the suit filed by the daughter in the year 2007 and now in the year 2016, through new power of attorney, he has agitated that he has not received any notice under Section 135D and he has never executed any power of attorney to the earlier power of attorney holder i.e. Mr.Varinda Dave is nothing but and afterthought and abuse of the process of the law.
15. Further, when the revenue authority has made entry on the basis of the registered sale deed, there is no question of cancelling such entry by any authority including the present respondent no.3, in absence of any decree of the competent Court for cancellation of such sale deed. Therefore, this is a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Page 21 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/4079/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/09/2022 the Constitution of India as the impugned decision is per se arbitrary and illegal.
16. In view of the above discussion, this petition requires to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed. This petition is allowed. The impugned decision dtd. 04.01.2018 communicated vide communication dtd. 12.01.2018 passed by respondent no.3 in Panchayat-4/Work/Appeal/16-20 of 2018 in a meeting of the Appellate Committee held on 04.01.2018 as well as the impugned order dated 8.3.2018 passed by Deputy District Development Officer, Jamnagar (as communicated vide communication dated 15.3.2018 by respondent no.4) are quashed and set aside and the respondent no.5 is directed to restore the entry of the petitioner in village form No.2 in respect of subject lands.
17. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No orders as to cost.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 22 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 06 21:04:05 IST 2022