Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Petitioner has challenged an order dated 7th December 1991 by which the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat was pleased to set aside the orders dated 5.12.81, 27.1.82 and 11.5.87 passed by the Collector, Valsad. He was further pleased to order the Collector to take the possession of the land back.

2. Facts leading to the present petition are as follows:-

2.1 The petitioner is an ex-service man. He had joined the Army as Commissioned Officer on 25.6.65 and was released from Army Service on 1st February 1973. On the same day, he joined Police Service. While the petitioner was posted as District Superintendent of Police, Valsad, he applied for grant of Panchayat land bearing survey No.550 and 552 of village Magod, Taluka Valsad for personal cultivation on lease for growing coconut trees thereon. The lands were gaucher lands allotted to the Panchayat. It appears that on 29th November 1980, Magod Gram Panchayat passed a unanimous resolution to the effect that the Panchayat has no objection if the land is allotted to the petitioner. Resolution reads as follows:-

Resolution proposed by the President.

Resolution is passed unanimously.

On 5.12.81, the Collector, Valsad passed an order reclaiming gaucher land of survey No.550 admeasuirng 3 hectares 53 Are and 09 square meters (equivalent to 8 acres and 29 gunthas)and further granting the said land to the petitioner on lease for plantation of coconut trees for a period of five years on payment of rent of Rs.1 per year.

Condition No.5 of the order provided that upon completion of the term of lease, the land shall be returned to the Government. Condition No.6 provided that the petitioner shall not be allowed to carry out any construction on the land in question. The said allotment of the land was made primarily on the ground that the petitioner was an ex-army officer and further that the Panchayat had no objection to return the land to the Government for the said purpose.

Before I decide the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief, I must mention that the attitude taken by the village Panchayat of that village is to say the least is very strange and highly improper for a public body. When the question arose as to whether the land could be alloted to the petitioner, the Sarpanch of that Panchayat objected that the land should not be given to him because the land was gaucher land. When the question arose as to whether the same land could be allotted to respondent No.3, the Panchayat unanimously passed a resolution that there is no objection if the land is given to respondent No.3 and in that resolution they mention that there is no objection whatsoever if the land is allotted to respondent No.3 without taking any compensation from him. This is regarding the attitude of respondent No.2. However, these facts do not entitle the petitioner to get the land. The reason is that he is not an ex serviceman.

2.9 The petitioner opposed the notice. He was given sufficient opportunity to represent his case. He filed his written reply. He appeared through his counsel who was also permitted to make oral submissions. Secretary, eventually, passed the impugned order dated 7.12.91 cancelling the grant of land made by the Collector, Valsad through the above-mentioned three orders. In the impugned order itself, it is observed that economically poor people of the village rely on grazing the lands for sustenance of their livestock. Before dealing with gaucher land, people of the village should have been given an opportunity to represent. The Collector has not verified the total number of livestock and the extent of gaucher land available in the village. It is understandable that individual members of the village could not have resisted the application of the DSP of the District for grant of land. It was further held that for grant of land for cultivating coconut trees, it was necessary to call for applications from all interested persons which was not done. There is no Government policy for granting land on permanent basis for cultivating coconut trees. In any case, only people of the village could have been granted land in any form for growing coconut trees. The petitioner, admittedly, did not hold any agricultural lands at Magod village. The Government policy did not permit grant of land to outsiders. It was further observed that there is no policy of giving priority to ex-service man for granting land for cultivation of coconut trees. The land was not being disposed of for public purpose. The Collector did not have the authority to grant such land to the petitioner. Even considering that the petitioner is an ex-service man, his income did not qualify him for benefit of Government policy of granting land to such persons. On all these grounds, it was observed that the impugned orders were nullity and they were accordingly quashed and set aside.