Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.3 Respondent no.5 herein appealed against order of the Deputy Collector before the Government. The Revenue Secretary by his order dated 5.5.1994 allowed the appeal in part. In the said order while confirming the decision of the Deputy Collector that land is Devsthan land of Laxminarayan temple. Secretary further held that management of the land was done from time to time by respondent no.5. He was in occupation of land since 1960-1961. On 15.11.1979 i.e. before implementation of Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, he was in occupation of the land. He therefore, held the land as inferior holder as per Section 4(2)(c) of the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act. Secretary therefore, passed the following order :

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of Special Secretary (Appeals), State of Gujarat dated 5th of May, 1994. The Special Secretary has while allowing the Appeal, partially modified the order of Deputy Collector, Amreli. The Special Secretary has reached the categorical finding that land is Devasthan Inam Land add after abolition of Devasthan Inam Act by Gujarat Devasthan Inam Abolition Act, 1969, it is allowed to go to inferior holder. It is found that Babulal Venishanker is the inferior holder. It is also found that the land is held otherwise than by way of restricted tenure. In that view of the matter consistent with the findings reached, the authority has accepted the request of Babulal Venishanker to treat the land as old tenure land. It is not shown to the Court as to how the findings are without jurisdiction. No error of law apparent on the face of the record is also shown. The petitioner before this Court is a person, who has no direct or immediate interest in the land in question. On such grounds the petition is summarily rejected.

It is not in dispute that no further proceedings were carried against the said order and same thus achieved finality. Question of status of the land and right, title and interest of respondent no.5 thereon were thus finally decided by this Court by said order dated 16.5.1994. Combined effect of order passed by the Deputy Collector on 20.1.1994, by Government on 5.5.1994 and by this Court in writ petition on 16.5.1994 is that the said land is a Devasthan land and that respondent no.5 was holding the same as an inferior holder on the date of introduction of Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act and further that land is held otherwise than by way of restricted tenure.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not challenge the order passed by the Government nor sought to question the decision of Learned Single Judge dated 16.5.1994.

In view of the above mentioned orders, rights of respondent no.5 flowing from the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act on the land in question were recognized and crystallized. He was recognized as inferior holder. He was entitled to certain rights under Section 6 of the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act. Impugned order dated 19.12.1994 passed by the Collector, Amreli granting NA permission is thereafter, only a consequential order. Entire attempt of the petitioner is to question the status of respondent no.5 vis-a-vis the said land. To our mind, same is not open to the petitioner. To reiterate, status of respondent no.5 vis-a-vis the said land was determined by virtue of series of orders starting from the order passed by the Deputy Collector on 20.1.1994, as modified by the government on 5.5.1994, which was upheld by this Court on 16.5.1994. The petitioner cannot seek to reopen the position in the present proceedings. On the basis of said position, respondent no.5 approached the Collector and sought NA permission for the land in question. Nothing has been pointed out to us to hold that such NA permission was granted de-hors the provisions of law. In any case once we hold that the title of respondent no.5 on the land cannot be questioned in the present proceedings, challenge to NA permission loses the character of public interest. Ordinarily, question of grant of NA permission to a private land owner is a matter between him and the government. In absence of any thing further, no question of interest of public importance can be stated to be involved. As already noted, main attempt however, on part of the petitioner was to question the status of respondent no.5 vis-a-vis the land. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that land was of the ownership of the temple. Respondent no.5 as Pujari only had occupancy right thereon and that he could not have any additional right. These however, are not the questions which can be examined in present petition, issues having achieved finality earlier.