Gujarat High Court
Mansa Agriculture Produce Market ... vs State Of Gujarat - Through Principal ... on 8 March, 2016
Author: C.L.Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
C/SCA/7054/2011 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7054 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
MANSA AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE & 1
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (APPEALS) & 12
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BS PATEL for MR CHIRAG B PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioners
MR RONAK RAVAL, ASSTT GOVT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR AS ASTHAVADI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR HARDIK MEHTA for MR PINAKIN M RAVAL, ADVOCATE for Respondent
No. 2
MS G R VIJAYALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4 - 13
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 08/03/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- Market Committee and its Chairman have challenged the order dated 24.10.2008 at Annexure-A Page 1 of 14 HC-NIC Page 1 of 14 Created On Thu Mar 10 01:38:02 IST 2016 C/SCA/7054/2011 JUDGMENT passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 11.3.2011 at Annexure-B passed by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No.3 of 2009 preferred by respondent Nos.4 to 13 herein.
2. By the order dated 24.10.2008, the respondent No.2 cancelled Non-Agricultural Permission (NA permission) granted under Section 65 of the Land Revenue Code ('the Code') for breach of the condition of such permission and ordered the Chairman/ Secretary to remove all constructions from the land for which NA permission was granted. Such order has come to be confirmed by the Additional Secretary by rejecting the revision application preferred by respondent Nos.4 to
13.
3. It appears from the facts stated in the petition as also from the orders impugned in the present petition that land bearing Survey No.1330 admeasuring 1 acre 35 gunthas situated at village Lodra, Taluka Vijapur, which belonged to respondent No.3, was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and allotted to the Vijapur Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The Vijapur Agricultural Produce Market Committee then asked for NA permission which was granted for the purpose of Sub Market Yard by the order dated 5.1.1969. Subsequently, revised NA permission was granted by order dated 5.4.1971 for the purpose of construction of Lodra Sub Market Yard. However, it was found that use of the land for Lodra Sub Market Yard continued only upto 1981-82 and shop Nos.13 to 19 admeasuring 416.20 Sq. Mtrs. were not used for market yard but used for residential and other commercial purposes. The Project Officer-cum- Taluka Development Officer (TDO), therefore, initiated proceeding for breach of condition and imposed fine of Rs.6650/- by order dated 19.11.1994. This order was challenged by the Vijapur Market Committee by preferring Revision Application No.6 of 1995. The Page 2 of 14 HC-NIC Page 2 of 14 Created On Thu Mar 10 01:38:02 IST 2016 C/SCA/7054/2011 JUDGMENT Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) while rejecting the revision application observed that for breach of the condition of NA permission, the concerned authority should take appropriate action for cancelling the NA permission after issuing notices to the concerned parties. Against this order, the Vijapur Market Committee preferred Regular Civil Suit No.123 of 1996 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), which was then transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.).
4. It appears that on bifurcation of talukas, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Mansa- petitioner No.1 was established for market area of Mansa Taluka by notification dated 29.9.2001 and Lodra Market Yard came to be transferred to Mansa Market Committee. Thereupon, the above-referred suit was transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar, where it was renumbered as Regular Civil Suit No.52 of 2005 and then the said suit was dismissed by order dated 9.2.2007, against which Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 2007 preferred by the Market Committee was also dismissed by judgment dated 4.2.2008. It was thereafter, the respondent No.2 initiated the proceedings for breach of condition of NA permission and passed order for cancellation of NA permission and for removal of the construction used for the purpose contrary to condition of NA permission.
5. The above-said order of cancellation of NA permission passed by respondent No.2 and for removal of the construction for breach of the condition of NA permission was not challenged by the petitioners before the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department but the same was challenged by respondent Nos.4 to 13 by preferring revision application before the Additional Secretary which, as stated above, came to be rejected. In the revision application preferred by respondent Nos.4 to 13, petitioner No.1 Market Committee was Page 3 of 14 HC-NIC Page 3 of 14 Created On Thu Mar 10 01:38:02 IST 2016 C/SCA/7054/2011 JUDGMENT joined as respondent No.9.
6. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Patel appearing with learned advocate Mr. Chirag Patel for the petitioners submitted that the action for breach of the condition was taken under the dictate of the higher authority and therefore, compliance of the principles of natural justice was a mere formality. Mr. Patel submitted that the decision to cancel the NA permission is not taken by the authority which heard the matter. Mr. Patel submitted that the petitioners did not challenge the order passed by the respondent No.2 by filing revision application as affected shop owners- respondent Nos.4 to 13 had already challenged the decision and therefore, the Market Committee supported them to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Mr. Patel submitted that the land acquired under the Acquisition Act was put to use for the market yard and only some shops were utilized by the shop owners for different purpose for which penalty was already imposed and therefore, NA permission for the entire land could not have been cancelled. Mr. Patel submitted that NA permission could not have been cancelled on the ground that the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired as such would not fall within the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. Mr. Patel submitted that respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction to order removal of the construction for breach of the condition of NA permission. Mr. Patel submitted that the impugned order has gone beyond the show cause notice inasmuch as the respondent No.2 has further ordered to remove the construction from the land.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ronak Raval on the other hand submitted that the petitioners accepted the order passed by respondent No.2 by not challenging the same before the Revisional Authority. Mr. Raval submitted that though the petitioner No.1 was made party respondent before the Revisional Authority, the Page 4 of 14 HC-NIC Page 4 of 14 Created On Thu Mar 10 01:38:02 IST 2016 C/SCA/7054/2011 JUDGMENT petitioner No.1 did not make any grievance against the order passed by respondent No.2. Mr. Raval submitted that now the petitioners have come out with excuse that they supported the challenge made by respondent Nos.4 to 13 and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, they did not make separate challenge. Mr. Raval submitted that while granting revised NA permission, there was a specific condition to use the construction on the land only for the purpose of Lodra Sub Market Yard and not for any other purpose without permission, however use of the land for Sub Market Yard was not continued after 1981 and shops were used for residential purpose and other purposes which was in breach of the condition of NA permission and therefore, the respondent No.2 committed no error in cancelling the NA permission and ordering removal of the construction. Mr. Raval submitted that the provisions of the Code do permit the concerned authority to order removal of the construction found to have been used in breach of the condition of NA permission. Mr. Raval submitted that since the petitioners accepted the order made by respondent No.2 by not preferring the revision application, this Court may not interfere with the impugned orders made by the authorities below.
8. Learned advocate Ms. Vijayalakshmi appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 13 submitted that the respondent Nos.4 to 13 are permitted to join to support the petitioners in their challenge made against the impugned orders. Ms. Vijayalakshmi submitted that the respondent Nos.4 to 13 have not committed any violation of any condition of NA permission or any of the Code.
9. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Mehta appearing for learned advocate Mr. Pinakin Raval for respondent No.2 submitted that the initial order made by the TDO in the year 1994 recording finding about breach of the condition of NA permission has become final. Mr. Mehta submitted that Vijapur Market Committee having lost before Page 5 of 14 HC-NIC Page 5 of 14 Created On Thu Mar 10 01:38:02 IST 2016 C/SCA/7054/2011 JUDGMENT the Deputy Secretary and before the Civil Court, now, the petitioners cannot be permitted to make any grievance as regards breach of the condition of NA permission. Mr. Mehta submitted that the revenue authorities are well within their jurisdiction to order removal of the unauthorized construction once breach of the condition of NA permission was found and the petitioners who have not challenged the order of the respondent No.2 by filing revision application cannot be permitted to challenge the order passed in the revision application preferred by respondent Nos.4 to 13.
10. Learned advocate Mr. Asthavadi appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that the land of respondent No.3 was acquired specifically for the purpose of construction of Sub Market Yard, however when respondent No.3 found that the use of the land for Sub Market Yard was not continued after 1981 and shops were being used for residential and other commercial purposes, it was brought to the notice of the concerned authority and the concerned authority after giving fair opportunities to the petitioners and affected persons committed no error in passing the order for cancellation of NA permission and for removal of the construction from the land. Mr. Asthavadi submitted that the order recording finding by TDO in the year 1994 that the land was not used for market yard was confirmed by the Deputy Secretary in the revision application preferred by Vijapur Market Committee and the Vijapur Market Committee as also the petitioner Market Committee lost in the civil suit and civil appeal. Mr. Asthavadi submitted that the revenue officers are well within their jurisdiction to even order for removal of the construction used in breach of the condition of NA permission and therefore, respondent No.2 having found that breach of NA permission was committed, rightly ordered for removal of the construction and also for cancellation of the NA permission and since the petitioners accepted such order of the respondent No.2 by not preferring the revision Page 6 of 14 HC-NIC Page 6 of 14 Created On Thu Mar 10 01:38:02 IST 2016 C/SCA/7054/2011 JUDGMENT application, this Court may not interfere with the impugned orders. Mr. Asthavadi submitted that respondent Nos.4 to 13 had in fact preferred writ petition before this Court but the same was withdrawn and therefore, the respondent Nos.4 to 13 are not entitled to make any grievance against the order made by the authorities below. Mr. Asthavadi submitted that the attempt on the part of the petitioners by filing the present petition is just to save the shop owners- respondent Nos.4 to 13 who are found to have used the shops for residential and other commercial purposes contrary to the condition of NA permission and therefore, the petitioners do not deserve any relief from this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. The Court having heard learned advocates for the parties finds that at the time when Vijapur Agricultural produce Market Committee got the NA permission revised, one of the conditions imposed in the order dated 5.4.1971, a copy whereof is placed at Annexure-I, was that the construction on the land was to be used only for the purpose of Lodra Sub Market Yard and not for any other purpose without the permission of the authority granting NA permission. The respondent No.3 whose land was acquired however brought to the notice of the TDO as regards non-use of the land for Sub market Yard and unauthorized use of the land by some shop owners. The Project Officer-cum TDO on inquiry and after hearing the parties found that use of the land by Vijapur Market Committee for Sub Market Yard was only upto the year 1981-82 and found that shop Nos.13 to 16 were used for residential purpose and shop Nos. 17 to 19 were given on lease for other commercial purpose, including to the Gujarat Electricity Board for its office. TDO, therefore, passed order dated 19.11.1994 recording finding about breach of the condition and imposing fine of Rs.6650/-. When this order was challenged by Vijapur Market Committee before the Deputy Secretary, the Deputy Page 7 of 14 HC-NIC Page 7 of 14 Created On Thu Mar 10 01:38:02 IST 2016 C/SCA/7054/2011 JUDGMENT Secretary while rejecting the revision application of Vijapur Market Committee observed that action for cancellation of NA permission for breach of the condition should be taken by the concerned authority. Such order was unsuccessfully challenged by Vijapur Market Committee before the Civil Court and even before the Appellate Court by filing Civil Appeal. The petitioner No.1 was transferee of the land of Lodra Sub Market Yard on its establishment on account of bifurcation of talukas, when suit was filed by Vijapur Market Committee was pending. It was after long drawn civil proceedings ended, respondent No.2 initiated action for breach of the condition of NA permission, wherein respondent No.2 found that Lodra Sub Market Yard continued upto 1981-82 and that shop Nos.13 to 19 were used for the purposes different than the purpose for which NA permission was granted. Such finding has not been disputed. However, what is urged on behalf of the petitioners is that breach of the condition was found only in respect of use of the shops covering 412 Sq. Mtrs. of land and that since the construction was made as per the revised NA permission, there is no power to cancel the NA permission for use of the land for different purposes and that the order is not passed by the authority which heard the petitioners. It is also urged that there is no power for removal of the construction from the land for breach of the condition of NA permission. However, the Court finds from the order made by respondent No.2 that the hearing was given by the District Panchayat Committee of which the District Development Officer was a Secretary of such committee and therefore, it cannot be said that the order is not passed by the same authority which heard the petitioners. The contention that since breach of the condition was found only in respect of use of some shops for different purposes, the NA permission granted could not have been cancelled for entire land, cannot be accepted as finding as regards breach of condition for non- use of the land for Lodra Sub Market Yard after 1981 and use of shop Page 8 of 14 HC-NIC Page 8 of 14 Created On Thu Mar 10 01:38:02 IST 2016 C/SCA/7054/2011 JUDGMENT Nos.13 to 19 for different purposes, had become final and once breach of condition of NA permission is found, the law authorizes the concerned authority not only to impose penalty but also to take action for removal of the construction which is found to have been used for different purpose. Section 66 of the Code not only permits the Collector to impose fine but also for summary eviction of persons found to have used the land in breach of the condition of NA permission. Such powers of the Collector is well recognized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) Vs. Fakir Umar Dhanse reported in AIR 1961 SC 722. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para 4 and 5 of the said decision as under:-
4. There is no dispute in this appeal as to the order of eviction. The question which was debated was the consequences of this eviction. Was the respondent required to remove the building and in default can the appellant demolish the building and (2) is the appellant liable to damages for the demolition of the portion which it had already demolished ? This would depend upon the interpretation to be put on some of the provisions of the Code.
The Collector, after getting the permission of the Government directed, by his order dated October 10, 1947, the removal of the structures unauthorisedly erected by the respondent and the action purported to have been taken under S. 66 of the Code. Section 45 of the Code provides that all land whether used for purposes of agriculture or other purposes and wherever situated is liable to payment of land revenue to Government and under S. 56 failure to pay land revenue makes the occupancy liable to forfeiture. Sections 65 and 66 of the Code provide :
Section 65. "An occupant of land assessed or held for the purposes of agriculture is entitled by himself, his servants, tenants, agents, or other legal representatives to erect farm buildings, construct wells or tanks or make any other improvements thereon for the better cultivation of the land or its more convenient use for the purpose aforesaid.
But if any occupant wishes to use his holding or any part thereof for any other purpose, the Collector's permission shall in the first place be applied for by the occupant..................................".
S. 66. "If any such land be so used without the permission of the Collector being first obtained or before the expiration of the period prescribed by section 65 the occupant and any tenant or other person holding under or through him shall be liable to be summarily evicted by the Collector from the land so used and from the entire field or survey number of which it may form a part Page 9 of 14 HC-NIC Page 9 of 14 Created On Thu Mar 10 01:38:02 IST 2016 C/SCA/7054/2011 JUDGMENT and the occupant shall also be liable to pay, in addition to the new assessment which may be leviable under the provisions of section 48 for the period during which the said land has been so used such fine as the Collector may subject to the general orders of the State Government direct.
Any tenant or any occupant or any other person holding under or through an occupant who shall without the occupant's consent use any such land for any such purpose and thereby render the said occupant liable to the penalties aforesaid, shall be responsible to the said occupant in damages."
It has been found that the respondent erected several structures without obtaining the prior permission of the Collector and he was liable to be evicted, and therefore the order passed by the Collector directing the eviction of the respondent was legal and intra vires.Under S. 65 an occupant of land held for the purpose of agriculture may erect farm buildings, construct wells or tanks or make other improvements for the better cultivation of the land or for its more convenient use for the purpose of agriculture but he cannot alter the user to non-agricultural purposes except with the permission of the Revenue authorities. This shows that any user unconnected with agriculture is unlawful and under S. 66 therefore any such altered user entitles the Revenue authorities to summarily evict the occupant from the land and certain other consequences follow. Therefore on a true construction of Ss. 65 and 66 an occupant is only entitled to the use and occupation of unalienated land subject to the limitation above mentioned and if he is once evicted under the provisions of S. 66 of the Code the right of user and occupation cannot be exercised by him.
5. Section 202 of the Code lays down the procedure for evicting any person unlawfully in possession of the land and provide as follows:
S. 202. "Whenever it is provided by this, or by any other Act for the time being in force, that the Collector may or shall evict and person wrongfully in possession of land, such eviction shall be made in the following manner, viz.,:
by serving a notice on the person or persons in possession requiring them within such time as may appear reasonable after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land, ......... ... ... .... .......... ......... ....... ..... "
This section therefore shows that eviction requires vacation of the land and vacation does not mean that anything done upon the land which was unauthorised is to be allowed to remain and only the person responsible for doing the unlawful act is to be removed from the land. That the words "eviction" and "vacation" do not mean mere physical removal of the occupant is clear from the very nature of the right which the respondent in the present case had. His right was confined to the use and occupation of the land for the purpose for which he held it from Government, i.e., for agricultural purposes and when he is evicted and is asked to vacate the land, it must mean that his rights come to an end. For the purpose of vacation it is necessary that any unauthorised Page 10 of 14 HC-NIC Page 10 of 14 Created On Thu Mar 10 01:38:02 IST 2016 C/SCA/7054/2011 JUDGMENT construction put up must also be removed otherwise there cannot be any vacation of the land nor can the land be put to effective use for the purpose for which agricultural lands are normally accepted to be used.It is not necessary to hold in this case as to whether on eviction the occupant also loses his right to the materials of the super-structure but it would be a misinterpretation of the words "eviction" and "vacation" of the land if it were held that although the occupant is evicted the structures erected by him cannot be removed and if the Government tries to restore the land to the original purpose for which it was granted then it will do so only on the pain of being mulcted in damages.It is, in our opinion, not necessary to have any specific power to have the land vacated of all unauthorised super-structures; the power to remove them is incidental and ancillary to the power to evict and to get the land vacated.It appears to us that the nature of the right of occupancy and the limitation placed upon it by the provisions of the Code contained in Ss. 40 and 41 by which the right to certain trees on unalienated land is reserved to the State; in Ss. 65 and 66 which have been quoted above and Ss. 68 and 69 which provide that an occupant is entitled to the use and occupation of the land for the period to which his tenure is limited shows that the true effect of eviction is the physical removal of the occupant from the land with all the consequences, i.e., demolition of all unauthorised super- structures. The High Court relied upon the difference in the language used in Ss. 61 and 66 of the Code and to the amendment made in the former section in 1919 by which the words "or to summary removal" were added in S. 61 and the relevant portion of the section now reads as under:-
S. 61. "The person unauthorisedly occupying any such land may be summarily evicted by the Collector, and any crop raised in the land shall be liable to forfeiture, and any building, or other construction erected thereon shall also, if not removed by him after such written notice as the Collector may deem reasonable, be liable to forfeiture or to summary removal."
From the addition of these words it was sought to be argued that these words were added to authorise the Collector to remove any building or other construction put up on that land by a person in unauthorised occupation and it was argued that those words were specifically added for the purpose. It is wholly unnecessary for us to go into the question as to why that particular power was given to the Collector. In this case we are concerned with the meaning of the word "eviction" as used in S. 66 and in our opinion the meaning of those words is that on eviction land has to be restored to the original position so as to be used for the purpose for which it was given to occupant.
This Court also in the case of Kanaiyalal Nandumal & Another Vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in 2007 (3) GLR 2694 relied on by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Raval, has held and observed in para 6 as under:-
Page 11 of 14
HC-NIC Page 11 of 14 Created On Thu Mar 10 01:38:02 IST 2016
C/SCA/7054/2011 JUDGMENT
6. A fair understanding of Section 66 would make it clear that any land which is used without the permission of the Collector being first obtained or before the expiry of three months referred to in Section 65, then, without prejudice to the occupant's liability to pay, the new assessment leviable under Section 48 or the conversion tax leviable under Section 67-A, the occupant may be summarily evicted from the land so used and from the entire survey number and occupant would also be liable to pay such fine as the Collector may direct. In the present matter, any construction beyond 160.60 sq.mts. would be in contravention of the permission and would also be in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 65 or Section 65A. In such case, the Municipality even cannot regularize the construction nor can sanction the plan. The authority to raise the construction is not conferred by the Municipality, but the authority to raise construction is conferred by the Collector under his orders and armed with such order, an application could be got approved and sanctioned. Any construction, which is not in contravention of the municipal byelaws or sanctioned plan ipso facto would not become legal construction for purposes of Section 66. For the purpose of Section 66, there must be a previous sanction or an action within three months in accordance with Section 65. If permission is not sought or the construction is not got regularised within three months in accordance with Section 65, then, the person, who has raised illegal construction would not be permitted to say that as his construction is in accordance with municipal byelaws, no action be taken against him.
12. It is required to note that the petitioners did not challenge the order of the respondent No.2 before the Additional Secretary when the respondent Nos.4 to 13 preferred revision application against the order of the respondent No.2. In such revision application preferred by respondent Nos.4 to 13, the petitioner No.1 was joined as party respondent. However, it appears from the order passed by the Revisional Authority that the petitioners neither made any submission nor raised any grievance against the order made by the respondent No.2. It was only when the Revisional Authority rejected the revision application preferred by the respondent Nos.4 to 13, the petitioners have come with the present petition challenging the order passed by the Revisional Authority as also the order passed by the respondent No.2. Learned advocate Mr. Patel however submitted that the petitioners have averred in para 3.5 of the petition that the Market Committee did not challenge the order made by the respondent No.2 Page 12 of 14 HC-NIC Page 12 of 14 Created On Thu Mar 10 01:38:02 IST 2016 C/SCA/7054/2011 JUDGMENT to support the shop owners in their revision application as there was a common interest involved and therefore, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to save the funds of the Market Committee, no separate challenge against the order of the respondent No.2 was made by the Market Committee. The Court, however finds that when breach of the condition was established and there was specific order for cancellation of NA permission and for removal of the construction from the land in question, there was no question of just supporting the occupants of the shops in their revision application without calling in question the order made by the respondent No.2. The petitioners had accepted the order passed by respondent No.2 but having found that the respondent Nos.4 to 13 lost in their revision application, the petitioners and the respondent No.4 to 13 have planned out the strategy in the matter of challenge to the order of respondent No.2. It is required to note that the respondent Nos.4 to 13 after filing separate petition, being Special Civil Application No.7310 of 2011, withdrew the same after their application to be joined as parties in the present petition was allowed. Learned advocate Ms. Vijayalakshmi appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 13 sought to raise grievances against the order passed by respondent No.2 in the present petition.
The Court however finds that the respondent Nos.4 to 13 cannot be permitted to raise any grievance against the order passed by respondent No.2 in the present petition. The manner in which the proceedings are taken out by the petitioners and the respondent Nos.4 to 13 would depict that the attempt on the part of the petitioners is just to protect the unauthorized use of the land in question which was meant to be used for the purpose of Sub Market Yard. To challenge the order passed by respondent No.2 by the present petition without filing revision application before the Additional Secretary and that too only after the revision application preferred by respondent Nos.4 to 13 was rejected, would show that Page 13 of 14 HC-NIC Page 13 of 14 Created On Thu Mar 10 01:38:02 IST 2016 C/SCA/7054/2011 JUDGMENT the petitioners are not pursuing the present proceedings bonafide. The contention that the land acquired for Market Committee could not be ordered to be vested with the Government is misconceived inasmuch as by the order of the respondent No.2, NA permission is cancelled for breach of the condition of NA permission and for removal of the construction from the land in question for such breach. The contention that the order has traveled beyond the show cause notice has no substance inasmuch as the show cause notice was to initiate action for breach of the condition of NA permission which takes within its sweep even to order summary eviction of the persons unauthorizedly using the land for different purpose.
13. In view of above, the Court finds that the petitioners do not deserve any relief to be granted by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged.
14. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Patel requested to extend the interim relief. Since such interim relief is in operation, the same can be extended for two weeks. Therefore, the interim relief stands extended for two weeks from today.
Sd/-
(C.L.SONI, J.) Omkar Page 14 of 14 HC-NIC Page 14 of 14 Created On Thu Mar 10 01:38:02 IST 2016