Gujarat High Court
Dhansukhbhai Somabhai Ahir vs State Of Gujarat on 20 January, 2020
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/5924/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5924 of 2019
==========================================================
DHANSUKHBHAI SOMABHAI AHIR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PERCY KAVINA, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR MANAN A SHAH(5412)
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS AISHVARYA GUPTA, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 20/01/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India has been filed challenging the Order dated 16.1.2019 passed by the Respondent No.2 - Collector, Surat, by which the Collector has not entertained the request of the Petitioner and refused to grant NA permission for the lands in question.
2. The facts in brief are as under:
2.1 The petitioner is the owner and occupier of land bearing Revenue Survey Number 246, New Survey No.147, Draft T.P. Scheme No.5 (Vesu-Bhimrad) F.P. No. 17, situated at Village Vesu, District Surat. The case of the Petitioner is that, since the Petitioner was interested in developing the lands in question he applied to the Collector for grant of N.A. Permission, which by the impugned order has been rejected.Page 1 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 07:14:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/5924/2019 ORDER
2.2 The Collector in the order has observed that the application for granting N.A. Permission cannot be granted.
The following reasons have weighed with the Collector in doing so:
1) That a Civil Suit is pending in respect of the lands in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge.
2) That there are RTS Appeals pending before the Deputy Collector and the proceedings are stayed in a Petition that is pending before the High Court and
3) The RTS Appeal No. 361/2014 is linked with RTS Appeals No. 157/2015, 182/2015 and 184/2015 and the same are stayed in a Petition being Special Civil Application Nos 10879/2017 and allied petitions.
2.3 The Petitioner has assailed this order of the Collector by way of the present petition.
3. Shri Percy Kavina, learned Senior Advocate has appeared with Shri Manan A. Shah for the Petitioner. In order to get a better appreciation of the facts based on which the impugned order has been passed, the following facts are noted as so submitted by Shri Kavina.
a) Govanbhai Aahir was the owner of certain parcels of land including the one which is the subject matter of the petition. Since the lands originally are ancestral properties, the petitioner being the son of the brother of Govan was by inheritance entitled to the lands in question.
b) Govanbhai had married Paniben. On Govanbhai's death Page 2 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 07:14:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/5924/2019 ORDER in the year 1989, the name of Paniben was entered in to the revenue records. Paniben also died in the year 2004.
c) Before Paniben's marriage to Govan, she was married to one Mitha Nagar Ahir and out of that wedlock, she had a daughter Laliben @ Lalitaben. After Paniben separated from Mitha, she had married the Petitioner's uncle Govan.
d) Since the properties were ancestral, after the death of Govanbhai and Paniben, the Petitioner's name figured in the Revenue Record.
e) Laliben, daughter through Paniben's previous wedlock, through forged order of a Mamlatdar dated 5/2/2015 got her name entered in the revenue records. The Petitioner has filed a criminal complaint against Laliben and the officer and the Advocate, who according to the Petitioner connived in creating a forged order of the Mamlatdar pursuant to which Laliben's name was entered in the Revenue Records.
f) Mutation Entry No.7678 based on the forged order of the Mamlatdar was cancelled by the Deputy Collector by his order dated 18/2/2015. Against the Order of the Deputy Collector, Laliben filed the RTS Appeals No. 361/2014, 157/2015, 182/2015 and 184/2015 (to which the Collector has made a reference in the impugned order under challenge in this Petition). Laliben in such proceedings is projecting herself as the daughter of Govanbhai, in fact she is Paniben's daughter out of the previous wedlock.
g) The Petitioner, it appears had requested the Deputy Collector, before whom the Appeals were pending to take action under Section 195 after holding appropriate Page 3 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 07:14:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/5924/2019 ORDER inquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, that application was rejected. The apprehension of the Petitioner was that, the Deputy Collector would allow the Appeals of Laliben with his complicity in the entire episode.
h) The Petitioner therefore preferred Special Civil Applications No. 10878 to 10881 of 2017 praying that the RTS proceedings before the Deputy Collector be stayed. The Court granted stay in such proceedings, of which the Collector has made a reference in the impugned order.
i) A Civil Suit being Special Civil Suit No 304 of 2015 has been filed by the private parties i.e. Laliben claiming to be successor in the properties.
3.1 Under the background of such facts the Collector has passed the impugned order refusing to consider the Petitioner's application for N.A Permission due to the pendency of the proceedings as above. Pressing into service Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, Mr. Kavina would submit that a daughter from the previous marriage would not be entitled to inherit the property within the meaning Of Section 15(1)(e) of the Act and therefore Laliben has no right to the properties in question.
3.2 Mr Kavina, learned Senior Advocate would further contend that the Collector while deciding the Application under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code cannot get into the inquiring of the title of the land. Since the order of the Collector is without jurisdiction the Petitioner also cannot be relegated to avail an alternative remedy.
Page 4 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 07:14:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/5924/2019 ORDER3.3 Mr.Kavina relied on the following decisions in support of his submissions.:
1) Bhupatbhai Ranabhai Lathiya versus State Of Gujarat [2016 JX (Guj) 1839]
2) Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani versus State Of Gujarat [2018 JX (Guj) 703]
3) Bhayabhai Vajsibhai Hathalia and Anr. Versus State Of Gujarat and Ors. [2012(2) GLR 1741].
3.3.1 These judgements, would in Mr Kavina's submission support the stand that the Collector while deciding an Application under Section 65 cannot take into consideration the scope of the objections of private parties who are yet to establish their rights. He submitted that the Collector should therefore be directed to reconsider the Application of the petitioner for N.A. Permission keeping these legal principles enunciated by this Court.
4. Ms. Aishwarya Gupta, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared and contested the petition. She has supported the order of the Collector. She would submit as under:
a) The Petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the Special Secretary against the order impugned herein and therefore the Court not to entertain the Petition.
b) The Petitioner has not joined the private respondents as parties to the petition.Page 5 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 07:14:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/5924/2019 ORDER
c) The petitions which are referred to in the impugned order have now been subsequently withdrawn and therefore at best they cannot be a subject matter of the scope of the Collector's adjudication even if the Court was to send it back for reconsideration.
d) The grant of permission for N.A. is in the domain of the Collector and he being a fact finding authority if the Collector and the Deputy Collector on facts have found that the lands are a subject matter of such litigations then there can be no fault on their part in rejecting the Application.
5. To the submission of Ms Gupta that there has been a fresh development in as much as the pending petitions have been withdrawn, Mr Kavina would agree that the Collector can decide afresh in view of the fresh development without taking into consideration the pending petitions, which have been now withdrawn on 25/7/2019.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the question is whether the Collector could have gone into the lis of private parties in the scope of his inquiry under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. In the case of Bhayabhai (supra), the Court has considered the issue. The question before the Court was whether the Collector could hold an elaborate inquiry in any manner because that would not affect the title of the land in question and even if civil suits are pending the same need not be a matter that ought to weigh with the Collector.
Page 6 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 07:14:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/5924/2019 ORDER6.1 It will be in the fitness of things to reproduce Paras 19 to 22 and 25 and 26 which read as under:
"19. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties. Before adverting to rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it is expedient to set out few indisputable aspects emerging form the matter.
1. The entire controversy is revolving around a parcel of land on which there was disputes on the revenue side for entry. Now, in those disputes the entry of the petitioners predecessor had been on the record since years. The contesting respondents after it received 135D notice it had not been assailed or objected to in any manner. This facts are on record. After the demise of contesting respondents father, for the first time in the year 1989 an objection was raised for non-inclusion of the names on account of challenging the parties of the property. Their entry was made being entry no. 1844 which was subject matter of scrutiny at the level of revenue authorities and ultimately that entry remained suspended by highest authority of revenue side i.e. Special Secretary as per the order dated 16/7/2008 of Special Secretary.
2. From the aforesaid it can very well be said that so far as the Land Revenue Code is concerned, present contesting respondents have not been acknowledged as occupants and or even interested party by the revenue authority and so far their name is concerned same is suspended and is made explicit subject to out come of civil suit of the parties and rightly so as revenue authority cannot go into the title and disputed question of facts so far as the land and properties are concerned.
3. As against this, the entry in question of the petitioners predecessor was existing on the land revenue record since decades as could be seen from the revenue proceedings placed on record. The revenue entry for the first time came to be mutated so far as the petitioners are concerned in favour of petitioners predecessor father on 5/2/1953 and this 1953 entry had not been Page 7 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 07:14:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/5924/2019 ORDER objected. After the demise of petitioners predecessor father petitioners predecessor were also shown to be entered by way of entry no. 1315 dated 3/3/1986. Thus these entries remained and thereafter the petitioners purchased the land in question by way of registered sale deed and by virtue of provision of section 135C interest acquired in the land by virtue of registered sale deed as a matter of course is required to be entered into revenue record as nothing delves upon the revenue record so far as the ownership is concerned. Therefore section 135C absolves the predecessor through registered sale deed for obligation of notifying to concerned authority. Thus the registered sale deed purchased by the present petitioner came to be reflected in the mutation entry no. 2713 dated 18/12/2010 and the said entry has attained its finality as there existed now no challenge to it. Based upon this entry when the N.A. Permission was applied for land it was granted by the competent authority i.e. Dy. Collector, the same was assailed by the contesting respondents, who are yet to establish their right on the land in question.
4. The petitioners predecessor have filed civil suit in the year 2000 for permanent injunction being Civil Suit No. 30/2000 and in that suit the injunction was not denied on account of any adjudication order found qua possession but it was denied on account of no imminent threat of possession as could be seen from the order passed in the suit.
5. The contesting respondents have filed civil suit, wherein till date no prohibitory order has been obtained against any one including present petitioners and or to the predecessors. In other words the contesting respondents have not been successful in establishing even semblance of their right which would have qualified them for obtaining temporary injunction or atleast status- quo of the land in question. In other words had there been any right found in favour of the contesting respondents by the competent civil court then only there would have been an order of status-quo restraining the predecessor of the petitioners and petitioners from alienating the character of land or creating more equities in Page 8 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 07:14:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/5924/2019 ORDER respect of the land in question.
6. The Section 65 of the Code on its plain reading do not provide for any scope of raising objection in the party who is yet to establish its right in favour on the land in question.
7. The seriousness of the dispute and its grave repercussions, including commission of murder would not be held against the present petitioners in developing the land. Petitioners have not been named in any manner in the FIR though this dispute had taken place long back as the FIR is of the year 2000."
20. Thus, from the aforesaid almost indisputable aspects, this Court is called upon to examine the contentions in respect of the order impugned in this petition. Plain reading of section 65 of the Code in my view would persuade the Court to hold that section 65 of the Code does not envisage scope of raising any objection in any party who is not acknowledged right or interest in the land in question. In other words proceedings under section 65 of the Code is not an adversely proceeding at all. If any interested party is apprehending any smart practice on any one in respect of land it can always take recourse to the civil court for obtaining appropriate injunction or prohibitory orders. When the party fails obtaining any appropriate order of injunction or prohibitory order from the competent civil court, then that party, atleast in my view, would not be entitled to seek any prohibitory orders against the person whose name is shown in the revenue record as an occupant. Or else it will lead to a situation where on account of showing semblance of some interest in the land in question or for that matter even substantive interest the party who has not been successful in establishing its right and obtain any prohibitory orders would succeed in thwarting and throatling the occupant of the land in question who is legitimately acknowledged to be occupant by revenue authorities. The N.A. Permission under section 65 cannot be said to be in any manner conferring and or abridging title of any one if it exists in the land in question. It is merely an act of granting permission by the authority qua the piece of land in question. In other words it can well be said that the land which was an agricultural land and it was Page 9 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 07:14:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/5924/2019 ORDER supposed to put up to agricultural purpose, is decided to be freed from restrictions and permitted to be developed. Thus the permission is attached to the land in question and not to the person. Therefore in my view the interpretation of section 65 of the Code cannot be said to be in any manner rendering it to be adversarial proceedings at all.
21.Bearing the aforesaid proposition of law in mind when one examines the aspect of appeal preferred by the contesting respondents, one would find it difficult to accept as to how the right to appeal is said to have been conferred upon a third party who has failed in establishing any right before the civil court so far as the land in question is concerned. When the party has not obtained any order or has not been succeeful in obtaining any order in any manner from civil court, which is competent, i.e. only court to adjudicate upon and acknwoeldge their rights and title in the land in question, that party cannot be permitted to throw spanner in the wheels of developemnt set in motion by the legitimate competent authroty, whose entery is there in the reveue record. Therefore the appeal itself from the point of view of locus was also not obtained.
22.This brings the Court to consider the aspect of jurisdiction in Collector to examine the order of Dy. Collector in exercise of power under section 65 of the Code. Section 65 of the Code is required to be set out as under.
"Sec. 65: Uses to which occupant of land for purposes of agriculture may put his land. [1] Any occupant, of land [assessed or held for the purpose 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]"
25. In my view, therefore, the contentions with regard to lack of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners deserves to be accepted. When lack of jurisdiction is held to be established the plea of non-existing of alternative remedy will fall into insignificance. In that view of the matter petitioners can well be said to have right to approach this Court under section 226 and also under Page 10 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 07:14:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/5924/2019 ORDER Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
26. The petitioners have shown on record that the Collector while exercising the power of appellate authority did not appreciate the fact that he himself has granted N.A. permission in number of cases which have been cited and those contentions of the petitioners have remained unanswered, though Collector is served and duly represented. Be that as it may; the Court may not delve upon it in any manner as the reply of Collector is unfortunately not there on the record to meet with those contentions. Suffice it to say here that the order of Dy. Collector which was under scrutiny by the Collector was not the order passed by the subordinate, in the sense conferring upon him power of appellate authority. Hence those facts coupled with the facts with regard to lack of any established or substantive interest in the contesting respondents would not prevent him from passing order which would have repercussion upon the petitioners activity of development, which has come to a grinding halt on account of such order."
6.2 Even in the case of Bhupatbhai (supra), this Court considering the provisions of Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code has held as under:
"14. There can be no cavil with the proposition that it is only a civil Court of competent jurisdiction that can decide a question regarding the title of the land in question. This Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not do so. In such circumstances, can it be said that the second respondent is right in refusing NA Permission to the petitioner on the ground that the title of the land is defective? The answer is definitely in the negative. The following are the reasons for the above conclusion.
15. Section 65 of the Code provides for the uses to which an occupant of land for the purpose of agriculture may put his land to. If the occupant of the land wishes to use the land for purposes other than agriculture or agriculture-related activities, he is required to make an Page 11 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 07:14:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/5924/2019 ORDER application to the Collector for permission to do so. It may be noted that the key-word in Section 65 is the occupant of the land. It is sufficient for the purposes of Section 65, that the person applying for NA Permission is an occupant of the land. It is nowhere stated in the said provision that the applicant should have title or ownership over the land for which NA Permission is sought. The legislature, in its wisdom, has thought it fit that it should suffice if an occupant of the land applies for NA Permission. It is not necessary that such person has to prove his title to the land before he makes an application. The present case is on a far better footing. Not only are the petitioners occupants of the land, they are also the owners thereof, by a legal and valid registered Sale Deed.
16. Thus, it transpires that, no power is available to the second respondent under Section 65 of the Code to examine or conclude regarding the title of the petitioner over the land in question. A bare reading of the said provision makes it clear that it only provides for the uses to which an occupant of land for agricultural purposes, may put his land to. The provision further lays down the procedure to be followed for making an application for NA Permission by the occupier and the manner in which it is to be processed by the Competent Authority (in the present case, respondent No.2). Nowhere is it contemplated in Section 65 that the Collector is empowered to undertake an inquiry into the title of the occupier. A perusal of the impugned order dated
07.12.2015, passed by the second respondent makes it clear that the reason for the rejection of the application of the petitioners is that, according to the second respondent, their title to the land in question is defective on the ground that initially, the land had been sold by the Administrator of Gram Samast to the predecessor-in- title of the petitioners. The same stand emerges from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the second respondent, as well.
17. In State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (supra), the Supreme Court has clearly held as below:
"14. We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner should not have gone into question Page 12 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 07:14:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/5924/2019 ORDER of title. It seems to us that when the title of an occupant is disputed by any party before the Collector or the Commissioner and the dispute is serious the appropriate course for the Collector or the Commissioner would be to refer the parties to a competent Court and not decide the question of title himself against the occupant.
18. This was also a case where NA Permission under the provisions of Section 65 of the Code was in issue. The above principles of law therefore, squarely apply to the present case.
19. Considering the provisions of Section 65 of the Code as well as the above pronouncement of law by the Supreme Court, this Court cannot but arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the denial of NA Permission to the petitioners under the garb of a purportedly defective title over the land in question amounts to a transgression of the limits of jurisdiction vested in the second respondent under the Code. The impugned order is, therefore, one without jurisdiction."
6.3 In the case of Tusharbhai (supra), that position of law was reiterated as under:
"43. This was also a case where the NA Permission under the provisions of Section 65 of the Code was in issue. The above principles of law therefore, squarely apply to the present case.
44. Considering the provisions of Section 65 of the Code as well as the above pronouncement of law by the Supreme Court, this Court cannot but arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the denial of NA Permission to the writ applicants under the garb of a purportedly defective title over the land in question amounts to a transgression of the limits of jurisdiction vested in the second respondent under the Code. The impugned order is, therefore, one without jurisdiction. For such reason also the plea of alternative remedy should fail.
45. In the aforesaid context, let me look into a Page 13 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 07:14:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/5924/2019 ORDER decision of this Court in the case of Bhayabhai Vajshibhai Hathalia vs. State of Gujarat, 2012 (2) GLR 1741. I may quote the relevant observations:
"20. Thus, from the aforesaid almost indisputable aspects, this Court is called upon to examine the contentions in respect of the order impugned in this petition. Plain reading of Section 65 of the Code in my view would persuade the Court to hold that Section 65 of the Code does not envisage scope of raising any objection in any party who is not acknowledged right or interest in the land in question. In other words proceedings under Section 65 of the Code is not an adversely proceeding at all. If any interested party is apprehending any smart practice on any one in respect of land it can always take recourse to the civil Court for obtaining appropriate injunction or prohibitory orders. When the party fails obtaining any appropriate order of injunction or prohibitory order from the competent civil Court, then that party, atleast in my view, would not be entitled to seek any prohibitory orders against the person whose name is shown in the revenue record as an occupant. Or else it will lead to a situation where on account of showing semblance of some interest in the land in question or for that matter even substantive interest the party who has not been successful in establishing its right and obtain any prohibitory orders would succeed in thwarting and throatling the occupant of the land in question who is legitimately acknowledged to be occupant by revenue authorities. The N.A. Permission under Section 65 cannot be said to be in any manner conferring and or abridging title of any one if it exists in the land in question. It is merely an act of granting permission by the authority qua the piece of land in question. In other words it can well be said that the land which was an agricultural land and it was supposed to put up to agricultural purpose, is decided to be freed from restrictions and permitted to Page 14 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 07:14:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/5924/2019 ORDER be developed. Thus the permission is attached to the land in question and not to the person. Therefore in my view the interpretation of Section 65 of the Code cannot be said to be in any manner rendering it to be adversarial proceedings at all.
21.Bearing the aforesaid proposition of law in mind when one examines the aspect of appeal preferred by the contesting respondents, one would find it difficult to accept as to how the right to appeal is said to have been conferred upon a third party who has failed in establishing any right before the civil Court so far as the land in question is concerned. When the party has not obtained any order or has not been succeeful in obtaining any order in any manner from civil Court, which is competent, I.e. only Court to adjudicate upon and acknwoeldge their rights and title in the land in question, that party cannot be permitted to throw spanner in the wheels of developemnt set in motion by the legitimate competent authroty, whose entery is there in the reveue record. Therefore the appeal itself from the point of view of locus was also not obtained."
46. Thus, the above referred decision makes the legal position abundantly clear. The position, as on date, is that the order of status quo passed by the Civil Court in the suit filed by the respondents Nos.3 to 17 has been stayed by this Court in an Appeal From Order No.16 of 2018. As on date, there is no prohibitory order operating against the writ applicants or in favour of the respondents Nos. 3 to 17. In such circumstances, what is the Collector expected to do while deciding an application seeking N.A. Permission. Indisputably, the names of the writ applicants figure in the record of rights as the owners of the subject land. The entry, mutating their names in the record of rights, is on the basis of the sale deed executed in their favour in the year 2006. The respondents Nos.3 to 7 are yet to obtain appropriate declaration as regards the legality and validity of the sale deed of the year 2006 executed in favour of the writ Page 15 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 07:14:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/5924/2019 ORDER applicants. The only proceeding pending as on date is the civil suit filed by them."
7. Keeping the aforesaid legal principles in mind what is evident is that the Collector, while refusing to grant the application of the Petitioner for N.A permission could not have considered the question of the pendency of the Civil Suit. In addition thereto merely because there are proceedings pending before the Revenue Authorities in the RTS Appeals which have been referred to by the Collector in his order impugned, the same cannot be made a ground to reject the permission of the petitioner. There is a fresh development inasmuch as the Petitions filed by the Petitioner of which reference is too made in the impugned order have been withdrawn as a result of the death of Laliben. The order in the petitions reads as under:
"Mr. Manan Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petitions in view of changed circumstances.
Learned advocate Mr. Shah appearing for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of these petitions, respondent No.4 - Lalitaben @ Laliben Bhavanbhai Aahir has expired.
Permission as prayed for is granted. Petitions are disposed of as withdrawn.
It is needless to say that all the applications which are pending before the lower Revenue Authorities be decided without being influenced by the earlier orders passed in revenue proceedings. Ad-interim Relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith. Notice is discharged in each of the petitions."
Page 16 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 07:14:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/5924/2019 ORDER8. Keeping the above position in mind and taking into consideration that the order of the Collector is without jurisdiction, the same is quashed and set aside without relegating the Petitioner to avail an alternative remedy. The Collector Surat is directed to once again reconsider the prayer of the Petitioner for grant of N.A Permission bearing in mind the observations of this Court more particularly the decision in the case of Bhayabhai (supra) and keeping in mind that while deciding the Application under Section 65 of the Code, the title of the parties should not be looked into. The fresh exercise should be undertaken by the Collector at the earliest and the same shall be completed with an appropriate order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this Order. It is clarified that the impugned order is quashed only for reconsideration of the prayers of the petitioner considering the fresh development in light of the withdrawal of the petitions which were referred to in the impugned order. The Petition is partly allowed as aforesaid with no order as to costs.
Direct Service is permitted (BIREN VAISHNAV, J) DIVYA Page 17 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 07:14:11 IST 2020