Gujarat High Court
Lakhabhai vs State on 20 April, 2011
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4761/2011 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4761 of
2011
=========================================================
LAKHABHAI
DEVABHAI PATA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HM PRACHCHHAK for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JANAK RAVAL AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 20/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. The petitioner has approached this Court vide order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the Collector rejecting the petitioner's application and declined to grant the prospecting licence.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision rejecting his application.
3. It appears from the record that the petitioner had applied for prospecting licence vide his application dated 28.11.1996.
3.1 The petitioner requested for the licence for about 80 hector land out of Survey No.278.
3.2 It is claimed by the petitioner that out of the said Survey No.278/P situate at Village Paradava, Taluka Jamjodhur, District Jamnagar, admeasuring about 3145.30 acre, about 599.39 acre land is reserved for Girasdari Vidi land and 347.08 acre land is reserved for Gauchar land whereas 177.09 acre land is reserved for Santhani land and 2 acre land is Gamtal land.
3.3 Having described the said details, the petitioner has also claimed that out of 3145 acre land, about 1126 acre land is kept reserved for different purposes.
3.4 It was somewhere in October-1996, the petitioner, as aforesaid, applied for prospecting licence for about 80 acre land out of the above described land bearing Survey No.278/P. 3.5 Since the authority was of the opinion that the application deserved to be disallowed, a notice dated 15.01.2004 was issued.
3.6 The petitioner tried to clarify the situation as regards the land and to justify his request. It was his claim that the land was having potentiality of natural resources, the petitioner should be allowed the prospecting licence.
4. It appears that somewhere in 2005, the respondent no.5 has placed the subject land as Gauchar land.
4.1 The petitioner has made unsubstantiated allegation that even grass does not grow over the said land. There is no material to prove the allegation. At one stage, the petitioner had approached this Court by writ petition being Special Civil Application No.12892 of 2010 on the ground that though his application remained pending for longtime and it was not being decided. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for appropriate directions. The Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K. Rathod) disposed of the said petition vide order dated 06.10.2010 directing the petitioner to make representation and the authorities to decide the same favorably within three months.
4.2 It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently the petitioner was called for hearing, the petitioner was heard and thereafter, the impugned order dated 28.12.2010 came to be passed.
4.3 On perusal of the order, it transpires that after receipt of the application and it is pertinent to note, the Competent Authority had called for opinion from the concerned Officers/Authorities and Departments including the Panchayat and Mamlatdar.
4.4 The Competent Authority has recorded that all Officers/Authorities have given opinion against the request.
4.5 The Competent Authority has also recorded that the land is described in the revenue record as "Gauchar land".
4.6 It is also observed and recorded in the order that any opinion from Panchayat to de-notify the land has not even received and any decision has not been taken on that count and therefore, the land continues to be Gauchar land.
5. Mr. Prachchhak, learned advocate for the petitioner, contended that as per the provision under the Act, particularly Section 108 of Panchayat Act there is no need for the Collector to seek permission or opinion from Panchayat. He also tried to rely upon the circular dated 26.02.2004 and submitted that if the land has potentially for explanation of natural resources then the prospecting licence ought to have been granted.
6. Having regard to the opinion given by the Deputy Collector, Mamlatdar and Panchayat and also having regard to the fact that the land in question is Gauchar land, the Competent Authority i.e. the Collector declined to accept the petitioner's application and rejected the same by the impugned order.
6.1 Having considered the reasons recorded by the Collector in the order in support of which decision, this Court is of the view that the Collector has not committed any error or arbitrariness in passing the said order.
6.2 This Court agrees with the view taken viz. Gauchar land should not be allowed for other use or purpose.
6.3 If for valid and sustainable reasons, the Competent Authority declines to grant prospecting licence in respect of particular land then the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim that the application/request for prospecting licence and that too in respect of Gauchar land should be entertained and granted.
6.4 So long as the Court does not find any arbitrariness or malafides in the decision and if it is not attended the breach of natural justice, the Court would not interfere with such decision.
7. The petition fails and it is accordingly rejected.
(K.M. Thaker, J.) rakesh/ Top