Gujarat High Court
Daud Yusuf Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 16 October, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13568/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 13568 of 2023
==========================================================
DAUD YUSUF PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AFTABHUSEN ANSARI(5320) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6
MR DHAWAN JAISWAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 16/10/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-
"a. YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO quash and 07.03.2023 set made aside by communication the Vistran dated Adhikari (Panchayat), Vagra Vibhag, Taluka Panchayat Vagra, Bharuch to Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Vagra and the communication dated 24.04.2023 made by the Taluka Vikas Adhikari, Taluka Panchayat Vagra to Deputy Collector, Bharuch and the order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the Lang Grabbing Committee, Bharuch;
b. YOUR LORDSHIPS may kindly be pleased to direct the Chairman, Land Grabbing Committee to decide and determine the complaint of the petitioner afresh by considering the valid resolution dated 21.10.2016 in the interest of justice and totality."
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the dispute pertains to the land bearing Khata No.443 of survey No.453 of village Page 1 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 18 20:40:38 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13568/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023 undefined Argama, Tal: Vagra, Dist: Bharuch. It is claimed that the ownership of the land belongs to the Government. It is further averred that one Mr. Aasif Ibrahim Saiyed was holding the post of Deputy Sarpanch in the year 2014. It is further averred that a resolution dated 20.5.2014 was passed by the Argama Gram Panchayat for allocation of the Government land to the beneficiaries, which includes the wife of Mr. Aasif Ibrahim Saiyed. It is further the case of the petitioner that in a Gram Panchayat Sabha dated 21.10.2016, upon collective wisdom and with unanimous consent, a resolution was passed unequivocally declaring resolution dated 20.5.2014 as being devoid of merit and legal sanctity and consequently nullified it.
3. In background of above facts, the petitioner has pleaded that though the resolution of allocating the land was cancelled, Mr. Aasif Ibrahim Saiyed through his wife was holding the construction in the land of survey No.453, as such, he has grabbed Government land. Thus, on 4.11.2021, a complaint was filed under the provisions of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 (in short "the Act") at the behest of the petitioner.
4. It is further alleged that the Land Grabbing Committee, without following procedure of Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 2020 (in short "the Rules"), upon its wisdom, requisitioned insights from the Taluka Panchayat, Vagra and the Presiding Officer, Bharuch. Both the authorities have unambiguously expressed their opinion concurring with the proposition that the accused stands in contravention of the stipulations outlined in the Act and recommended the Page 2 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 18 20:40:38 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13568/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023 undefined proceedings to be initiated under the Act. It is further alleged that the Land Grabbing Committee, instead of soliciting said recommendation, opt to seek for additional investigation report from the office of the Deputy Collector, Bharuch, specifically in relation to the resolution dated 20.5.2014 and lay to review earlier report without jurisdiction. It is further alleged that the Deputy Collector instead of following the command from the Land Grabbing Committee, delegated the task to the TDO and then consequent delegation to Vistaran Adhikari. It is further alleged that said allegation is in breach of explicit direction issued by the Land Grabbing Committee. It is further alleged that the Deputy Collector, who was delegatee, could not delegate the power for investigation to the TDO and subsequent to the Vistaran Adhikari. It is also alleged that consequently, the Vistaran Adhikari and the TDO have filed a report in favour of the accused, which has been taken on record by the Land Grabbing Committee and then, decided not to initiate proceedings under the Act against the accused. By way of this petition, it is claimed whole procedure adopted by the Land Grabbing Committee and Deputy Collector is against the provisions of the Act and thus, non-est.
5. In wake of above facts and circumstances, present petition is filed.
6. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.A. Ansari for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. Dhawan Jaiswal for the respondent State.
7. Referring to Rule 5(8), 6 and 6(3) of the Rules r/w sections 10, 12 and 14 of the Act, learned advocate Mr. Ansari would Page 3 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 18 20:40:38 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13568/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023 undefined submit that since by way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the report of the Land Grabbing Committee, present petition is maintainable. He would further submit that the petitioner has no alternative and efficacious remedy to raise his grievance. He would further submit that the Act is not providing any remedy to the petitioner to ventilate his grievance against the report of Land Grabbing Committee before the Special Court. He would further submit that the Special Court would come in picture once the Land Grabbing Committee intend to initiate proceedings. He would further submit that therefore, the Land Grabbing Committee, who is pivotal to decide whether to initiate proceedings under the Act or not, its decision cannot be questioned before the Special Court in view of section 12 of the Act. Pressing into service section 12 (A) and 12(B) of the Act, he would submit that the Committee notified by the Government and headed by the District Collector is the centric to grant approval for commission of offence. He would further submit that in the present case, the Land Grabbing Committee has denied commission of offence and therefore, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach this Court by way of this petition.
8. Referring to rules stated herein above, learned advocate Mr. Ansari would submit that once the Land Grabbing Committee has directed the Deputy Collector to inquire about the issue and to file report, he cannot delegate his power to the TDO and the Vistaran Adhikari. He would further submit that such act is in complete contravention of the Legislative Intent. He would further submit that since the Land Grabbing Committee has acted upon the report made by the TDO and the Page 4 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 18 20:40:38 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13568/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023 undefined Vistaran Adhikari, for which, they are not legally permissible to do so, the report itself is non-est and the decision subsequent thereto arrived at by the Land Grabbing Committee is also non- est.
9. Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Ansari would submit to allow this petition and to quash and set aside the impugned order and to direct the Land Grabbing Committee to decide afresh by considering the valid resolution dated 21.10.2016.
10. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. Dhawan Jaiswal for the respondent State, without expressing submission on the merits of the case, would press into service the judgment of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.18 of 2023 to submit that the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy to approach the Special Court established u/s 2(H) of the Act. Referring to section 9 of the Act, learned APP would submit that section 9 confers power upon the Special Court to take cognizance of the alleged incident even has power to refer complaint to Land Grabbing Committee for examination. He would further submit that in view of Rule 7 of the Rules, the Special Court has power to resort the issue to the Committee and in the matter, the cognizance has been taken by the Special Court. In this line of the submission, he would further submit that if the report of the Land Grabbing Committee is improper , the petitioner has to approach concerned Special Court, but he has not chosen to do so, cannot file petition before this Court as is not maintainable in view of alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner. He would further submit that in Page 5 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 18 20:40:38 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13568/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023 undefined fact, the issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.18 of 2023. Therefore, he would submit to dismiss the petition.
11. The submission of learned advocate Mr. Ansari can be broadly classified as firstly, he argued about maintainability of this petition submitting that the report of the Land Grabbing Committee cannot be assailed before the Special Court. The only remedy available is filing of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Besides, he contended that provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not be applicable in view of section 9(4) of the Act. Another contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Ansari is that in view of Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules, once inquiry is entrusted to the Prant Officer or the Deputy Collector, he cannot further entrust to the TDO or Vistaran Adhikari. It is further contended that since the report is called from the Vistaran Adhikari as well as from the TDO by the Prant Officer i.e. Deputy Collector without having any authority and that report has been considered by the Land Grabbing Committee, error took place throughout and as such, the decision of the Land Grabbing Committee is vitiated proceedings and it has to be remanded back to the Land Grabbing Committee to decide afresh proceedings,
12. This Court in case of Jayantilal Laxmishankar Pandya Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No.18 of 2023 has examined the scope of Sections 5, 7, 9 and 10 of the Act and the Rules. This Court has also examined that whether the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the report given by the Land Grabbing Page 6 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 18 20:40:38 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13568/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023 undefined Committee. The relevant paras are 6 to 12, which reads as under:-
"CONCLUSION:
6. The short issue, which falls for deliberation before this Court, is that whether the petitioner has a remedy by filing an application before the Special Court under Section 9 of the Act or he can directly challenge the action of the Committee by filing the writ petition before this Court.
7. For answering the aforenoted issue, I may incorporate the relevant provision of the Act and Rules.
"SECTION 9 : Procedure and powers of Special Courts (1) The Special Court may, either suo moto or on application made by any person, or any officer authorized by District Collector, take cognizance of and try every case arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing or with respect to the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of, the land grabbed, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and pass such orders (including orders by way of interim directions) as it deems fit.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, any case in respect of an alleged act of land grabbing or the determination of question of title and ownership to, or lawful possession of any land grabbed under this Act, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be triable in the Special Court and the decision of Special Court shall be final.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Special Court may follow its own procedure which shall not be inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and fair play and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder while deciding the Civil liability, (4) Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it shall be lawful for the Special Court to try all offences punishable under this Act. (5) The Special Court shall determine the order in which the civil and criminal liability against a land grabber be initiated. It shall be within the discretion of the Special Court whether or not to deliver its decision or order until both civil and criminal proceedings are completed. The evidence admitted during the criminal proceeding may be made use of while trying the civil liability. But additional evidence, if any, adduced in the civil proceedings shall not be considered by the Special Court while determining the criminal liability. Any person accused of land grabbing or the abetment thereof before the Special Court shall be a competent witness for the defence and may give evidence on oath in disproof of the charge made against him or any person charged together with him in the criminal proceeding:
Provided that he shall not be called as a witness except on his own request in writing or his failure to give evidence shall be made the subject of any comment by any of the parties or the special court or give rise to any presumption against himself or any person charged together with him at the same proceeding.
(6) Every case under sub-section (1) shall be disposed off finally by the Special Court, as far as possible, within a period of six months from the date of Page 7 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 18 20:40:38 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13568/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023 undefined institution of the case before it.
(7) Every finding of the Special Court with regard to any alleged act of land grabbing shall be conclusive proof of the fact of land grabbing and of the persons who committed such land grabbing, and every judgment of the Special Court with regard to the determination of title and ownership to, or lawful possession of, any land grabbed shall be binding on all persons having interest in such land.
(8) When an offence of land grabbing is proved, the Special Court may if it thinks fit, order that possession of the same be restored to that person after evicting by force, if necessary, any other person who may be in possession of the property.
(9) It shall be lawful for the Special Court to pass such order as it may deem fit to advance the cause of justice. It may award compensation in terms of money for wrongful possession of the land grabbed which shall not be less than an amount equivalent to the Jantri value of the land grabbed as on the date of the order and profits accrued from the land payable by the land grabber to the owner of the grabbed land and may direct re-delivery of the grabbed land to its rightful owner. The amount of compensation and profits, so awarded and costs of re-delivery, if any, shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue in case the Government is the owner, or as a decree of a civil court, in any other case to be executed by the Special Court:
Provided that the Special Court shall, before passing an order under this sub-section, give to the land grabber an opportunity of making his representation or of adducing evidence, if any, in this regard, and consider such representation and evidence.
SECTION 10 : Special Court to have powers of Civil Court and the Court of Sessions.
Save as expressly provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, shall apply to the proceedings before the Special Court and for the purposes of the provisions of the said enactments, Special Court shall be deemed to be a Civil Court, or as the case may be, a Court of Sessions and shall have all the powers of a Civil Court and a Court of Sessions and person conducting a prosecution before the Special Court shall be deemed to be an Assistant Public Prosecutor.
12. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,-
(a) no information about the commission of an offence under this Act, shall be recorded by a police officer without the prior approval of the District Collector in consultation with the Committee notified by the Government;
THE GUJARAT LAND GRABBING (PROHIBITION) RULES, 2020 RULE 5 : Inquiry by the Committee (1) On receipt of the application, the Collector shall entrust the inquiry to the concerned Prant Officer and / or any other officer including a Police Officer as may be deemed fit.
(2) In case of Government Land or in case where the person who has allegedly Page 8 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 18 20:40:38 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13568/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023 undefined grabbed the land is headstrong person, the collector or the State Government may take suo-moto cognizance and action shall thereafter be taken in accordance with sub-rule (3) to (10).
(3) On receipt of the application, the Prant Officer or the officer to whom the application has been referred to shall ask concerned authorities to furnish report containing all the details and permission issued by them along with relevant documents within 5 days.
(4) An inquiry shall be conducted for the prima facie locus standi of the applicant based on reports and records received from different authorities; and a conclusion to be derived whether a land title can be established. (5) An inquiry shall be conducted by the Prant Officer or the officer to whom application has been referred to, whether Land in question has been occupied or attempted to occupy, in unauthorized manner, with the use of force, threat, intimidation and deceit or by cheating, fraud and/or forgery; (6) The Prant Officer or the officer authorized by Collector shall submit the final report to the Collector within 21 days from the date of the receipt of the application. The report shall state whether prima facie case under the Act is established or not; The committee may also ask for further inquiry if it considers necessary.
(7) In case of unauthorized, continued occupancy of the land which was allotted or leased to any person by the Government with conditions attached, is cancelled by the competent authority or on the expiry of lease and renewal of application for the same is not under consideration then under such circumstances the committee may consider such act as land grabbing. (8) The committee shall consider the inquiry report and decide further course of action including filing an FIR within 21 days.
(9) As soon as the committee directs police to file FIR, it should be filed within 7 working days.
(10) The concerned investigation officer shall file final report before the special court within 30 days from the date of First Information Report.
RULE 7 : Power of Special Court to refer Cases.
The Special Court, under section 9(1) of the Act, may refer to the committee any matter of which cognizance has been taken by the court either suo-moto or on an application made by any person to the court and ask for the scrutiny report from the committee as per Rule 5."
Section 9 of the Act prescribes a detailed procedure and powers of the Special Court formed under the Act. The section stipulates that the Special Court may either suo motu or an application made by any person can take cognizance and try every case arising out of the alleged Act of Land Grabbing or lawful possession of the land grabbed. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 9 of the Act mention about following its own procedure, which shall not be inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and fair play. Sub-section (4) of Section 9 of the Act gives the power of the Special Court to try all offences punishable under the Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the Act empowers the Special Court to determine the civil and criminal liabilities against the land grabbers to be initiated and accordingly examine the evidence adduced by the respective parties. Sub-section (6) of Section 9 of the Act prescribes for the limitation of six months to dispose of the proceedings and it is further stipulated that the Special Court may if it thinks fit, order that possession of the land, which is grabbed, and direct be restored to that person after evicting by force. Finally, Section 9 of the Act provides the Special Court to pass such order as Page 9 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 18 20:40:38 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13568/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023 undefined it may deem fit to advance a cause of justice and also award compensation in terms of money for wrongful possession of the land. Section 10 of the Act prescribes the applicability of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to the proceedings before the Special Court. Section 10 of the Act further prescribes that "for the purposes of the provisions of the said enactments, Special Court shall be deemed to be a Civil Court, or as the case may be, a Court of Sessions and shall have all the powers of a Civil Court and a Court of Sessions and person conducting a prosecution before the Special Court shall be deemed to be an Assistant Public Prosecutor."
Thus, the submission advanced by learned Advocate Mr.Gadhvi to the effect that the Special Court has no power to take cognizance of the offence of land grabbing since it does not have the power akin to the powers conferred to Magistrate Court under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not merit acceptance. The aforenoted powers conferred to the Special Court under section 5 read with section 10 of the Act empowers the Special Court to take cognizance of the offence of land grabbing. The petitioner cannot equate the powers of the Special Court to that of Magistrate. The Special Court is constituted under the Act for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act for the sole purpose of examining the offence of land grabbing.
Finally, Section 12 of the Act provides the remedy of an appeal against the order passed by the Special Court before the High Court.
8. The petitioner has contended before this Court that after necessary exercise is undertaken under Rule 5 of the Rules by the Committee, he has no other option, but to approach the High Court by filing the writ petition. It is submitted that the Special Court can only refer the matter to Committee and in the present case since the petitioner has filed an application directly and the Committee has already formed its opinion, the petitioner has no remedy, but to challenge the action of the Committee before this Court. The submission, which is advanced before this Court, runs contrary to the laudable objects of the Act and if such submission is accepted, the entire purpose of creating the Special Court under the Act and the procedure as mentioned in Section 9 of the Act and the powers conferred below Section 10 of the Act to the Special Court will get frustrated. The entire Act is promulgated for formation of Special Court for undertaking necessary procedure declaring a land grabber responsible for the offence of land grabbing. Such procedure is prescribed under Section 9 of the Act and further it also empowers the Special Court to restore the possession of the person, whose land is grabbed and also pay the award of compensation in terms of money. The provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules if are closely read, will clarify that the legislature intended that while exercising the powers of the Special Court under Section 9(1) of the Act, the Special Court "may" refer to the Committee any matter of which cognizance has been taken by the court either suo motu or an application made by any person to the court and ask for the scrutiny report from the Committee as per Rule 5 of the Rules. The word 'used' in Rule 7 of the Rules is 'may'. The powers conferred to the Committee diretly co-relates under Rule 7 to the powers of the Special Court. Section 9 of the Act begins with the expression that the Special Court may either suo motu or an "application" made by any person can take cognizance and try every case arising out of alleged act of land grabbing. Thus, the power, which is to be exercised by the Committee is subservient to the powers of Special Court.
Page 10 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 18 20:40:38 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13568/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023 undefined
9. Thus, merely because the Committee has opined and taken a decision on an application filed by the petitioner, the same itself cannot dilute or negate the powers of the Special Court of taking cognizance of an offence under the Act. The petitioner is seeking to establish his case against the respondent nos.5 and 6 by alleging that they have grabbed his land by assailing the report of the Committee directly before this Court. The High Court cannot by-pass the procedure and step into the shoes of the Special Court and undertake the necessary proceedings holding the respondent nos.5 and 6 responsible for land grabbing. On the contrary, the order passed by the Special Court is appealable before the High Court under the provisions of Section 12A of the Act. Any observation made by the High Court at this stage can directly affect the status of the respondent nos.5 and 6.
10. Thus, the petitioner cannot take shelter under Rule 7 of the Rules and contend that once the scrutiny report of the Committee is available under Rule 5 of the Rules, the only remedy available to him to challenge the same before this Court and thereafter, seek a direction against the respondent nos.5 and 6, for establishing the offence of land grabbing.
11. This Court, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot examine the report of the Committee and hold that the respondent nos.5 and 6 are the land grabbers. If such an exercise is undertaken, the High Court by entertaining the writ petition, would be in fact exercising its appellate powers under Section 12A of the Act directly by diverting the procedure prescribed under Section 9 of the Act. On an application made by the petitioner before the Special Court alleging land grabbing by the respondent nos.5 and 6, the Special Court can still call for the report from the Committee if it "may" deem fit as per Rule 7 of the Rules and it can also without calling for the fresh report from the Committee can examine the current report and initiate the proceedings on an application or suo motu and further undertake the procedure prescribed in sub-sections of Section 9 of the Act. The Special Court is not confined by the findings of the Committee and while examining the report of the Committee, it can initiate further proceedings in an offence of land grabbing and pass necessary orders, as it may deem fit by undertaking the necessary procedure as prescribed under Section 9 of the Act. Thus, the submission of the petitioner of filing the writ petition directly challenging the decision of Committee in absence of any provision of appeal in the Act does not merit acceptance. Looking to the scheme of the Act and Rules, no provision stipulating the filing of an appeal against the decision of Committee is required; since the Special Court is armed with enough provisions to examine the offence of land grabbing independent of findings of the Committee. The petitioner has only to file an application alleging offence of land grabbing before the Special Court. The Special Court does not become functus officio only because the Committee has taken a decision. The Committee formed under the Rules cannot be placed at higher pedestal than the Special Court.
12. Thus, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 9 of the Act to approach the Special Court by filing appropriate application of land grabbing against the respondent nos.5 and 6 even after the Committee has tendered its report. The Special Court can always, after perusing the application made by the petitioner, can initiate the procedure as prescribed under Section 9 of the Act and if it desires call for further report of the Committee. This Court by entertaining this writ petition cannot adopt the procedure, as prescribed under Section 9 of the Act Page 11 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 18 20:40:38 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13568/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023 undefined merely because the Committee has rendered a report under Rule 7 of the Rules. The ultimate object of the petitioner is to evict the respondent no.5 and 6 for the alleged offence of land grabbing, which can only be examined by the Special Court on the basis of the evidence adduced before it."
13. In view of the findings and conclusion arrived by this Court, the issue is no more res integra. The decision of the Land Grabbing Committee would not operate as a bar to the petitioner to approach Special Court by filing appropriate application of land grabbing and to ventilate his grievance. In view of availability of efficacious remedy to ventilate his grievance and therefore, present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and as such, the same is required to be dismissed on that ground only.
14. What more peruse that, while contending that the Prant Officer cannot delegate further power to the TDO and Vistaran Adhikari for inquiry, learned advocate Mr. Ansari failed to read Rule 5(1) of the Rules, which gives power to the Collector to entrust inquiry to any concerned Prant Officer or any other officer including the police officer as, it may deem fit. Rule 5(3) of the Rules clearly empowers the Prant Officer i.e. Deputy Collector to call the report from the concerned authority furnishing all details and relevant documents. So, conjoint reading of Rule 5(1) and 5(3) of the Rules implies that Prant Officer having received entrustment of inquiry from the Collector, can call the report from the concerned authority to determine the aspect. In the present case, on perusal of the record, it appears that necessary procedure has been followed by the Deputy Collector. So, the grievance raised by the petitioner is meritless.
Page 12 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 18 20:40:38 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13568/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023 undefined 15. On reading the records and the report of the Land
Grabbing Committee, what appears that some other litigation have already been filed before the competent civil Court in regards to the disputed land. Annexure E of the compilation gives impression that Regular Civil Suit No.25 of 2022 was filed before the competent Court. What more important to envision that the petitioner did not come out with the case that his land has been grabbed. The petitioner beseech that Government land has been grabbed. The Collector, who is Chairman of the Land Grabbing Committee does not find merit in allegations. It appears that the present petition is filed with an oblique motive to settle the personal score and thereby, misused the process of this Court. Thus, the petition deserves no consideration and requires to be dismissed at admission stage with cost.
16. In the result, present petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- to be paid in DLSA, Bharuch within 10 days from the date of receipt of writ of this order, failing which, the concerned DSLA is at liberty to recover the amount of cost from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 13 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 18 20:40:38 IST 2023