Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ssrd in Satyambhai Keshavlal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 24 October, 2019Matching Fragments
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts stated in Special Civil Application No.9622 of 2018 are considered.
4. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the respondent Special Secretary, Revenue Department ('SSRD' for short) in MVV/BKP/Suo Motu/AMD/12/2016 be quashed and set aside and, thereby, this Court may confirm the order dated 29.04.2013 passed by respondent No.3 Taluka Development Officer ('TDO' for short).
7.1 Thereafter, it is submitted that respondent No.1, without assigning any reason and without dealing with the contentions of the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 TDO, has passed the impugned order. After referring to the impugned order, it is submitted that no reason has been assigned by respondent No.1 stating which guidelines of the circular or procedure has been violated by respondent No.3. It is only stated that there is a breach of provisions of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 ("the Fragmentation Act" for short) and, therefore, the proceedings under the said Act are to be initiated. It is also observed by the SSRD that there is a breach of provision of restricted tenure and proceedings to that effect are to be initiated. Therefore, NA permissions which were granted in April, 2013 were cancelled by the SSRD by the impugned order.
9. Mr.H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the respondent DDO has referred the affidavitin reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 and contended that when respondent No.3 TDO has not followed the procedure prescribed in Government Resolutions dated 01.07.2008 and 08.04.2011, the respondent DDO informed the SSRD to initiate suomotu proceedings against the order passed by the TDO. It is contended that as the respondent DDO has noticed several irregularities in granting nonagricultural use permission, the request was made. Learned advocate has referred the letter dated 01.02.2016, a copy of which is produced at Pages93 and 94 of the compilation. It is, therefore, urged that no error is committed by the respondent SSRD while passing the impugned order and, therefore, this petition be dismissed.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that when the suomotu proceedings were initiated after a delay of more than threeand ahalf years, the impugned order passed by the respondent SSRD is required to be quashed and set aside. The order passed by the TDO cannot be said to be nonest or of without jurisdiction and, therefore, suomotu powers were required to be exercised within reasonable time. Even otherwise, the respondent SSRD has not assigned any reason for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the TDO. It is only observed in the impugned order passed by the SSRD that looking to the record produced before him and looking to the Policy of the State Government, the TDO has committed irregularity and acted beyond his powers. No further details are mentioned in the impugned order.