Gujarat High Court
Ketan Babubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 17 February, 2020
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/2069/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2069 of 2017
==========================================================
KETAN BABUBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PARTHIV B SHAH(2678) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 17/02/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. After the matter was considerably heard, it is noticed that the respondent authorities have acted in complete defiance of the judgment and order passed by this Court. It is also noticed that though this court vide order dated 24.07.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No.11638 of 2015 filed by the petitioner had directed the Collector to give the parity to the petitioner as given to the other persons, who had already applied for similar parcel of land, the impugned order contrary to such observation is passed.
2. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner has filed his first application on 12.12.2014 seeking NA permission, however, by the two communications, it was informed to him that his NA application is not being decided since the State has yet to take a decision whether to file Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order dated 07.08.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No.16051 of 2010 and allied matters. It is pertinent to note that the State had filed the aforesaid writ petitions against the order of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, wherein, the land in question was under
consideration. The predecessor-in-title of the petitioner was made as a respondent in the aforesaid petition.Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 21:33:29 IST 2020 C/SCA/2069/2017 ORDER
3. Despite that, the predecessor-in-title was declared as an agriculturist and the same land was purchased by the petitioner, he has been denied the NA permission initially by stating reason that the State is yet contemplating of filing Letters Patent Appeal against the aforesaid order. It is also noticed that a similarly situated person being Vasantbhai Shantilal, who applied for NA permission on 30.09.2013, has been granted the NA permission by the order dated 25.06.2014 prior to the amendment of the Section 63AB of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("the Act"). It is surprising that the application of the petitioner was kept pending on the pretext of filing Letters Patent Appeal and ultimately, the same is decided after the amendment of Section 63AB of the Act resulting into the payment of 10% conversion charges to the tune of Rs.1,64,30,400/-. In the meantime, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing contempt petition being Misc. Civil Application No.2240 of 2016, whereby the notice was issued to the respondent authorities.
4. It appears that thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the respondent authorities asking him to pay the aforesaid amount.
5. The aforenoted facts would suggest that the petitioner has been deliberately put to such inconvenience despite the aforesaid observations made by this Court in the aforenoted judgments.
6. When all these facts were pointed out to the Learned Assistant Government Pleader, all the Learned Assistant Government Pleaders, namely, Mr.Sahil Trivedi, Mr. Dhawan Jayswal and Mr.Rohan N. Shah, request time in order to take sense of the respondent authorities. The matter is kept on Wednesday.
Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 21:33:29 IST 2020 C/SCA/2069/2017 ORDER7. Appropriate instructions with regard to the conduct of the respondent authorities in handling the entire episode with regard to grant of NA permission shall be considered in true perspective. The authorities shall keep in mind that the similarly situated person being Vasantbhai Shantilal Adani has been conferred the NA permission immediately within the appeal period before the amendment, whereas the application of the petitioner was kept pending deliberately. The matter to be placed on the top of the Board on 19th February, 2020.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) GUPTA* Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 21:33:29 IST 2020