Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. In rejoinder, Mr.Patel learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the land in question is Kharaba land. He has submitted that entire auction was carried out in one day only and there was no healthy competition in bidding process and others have no knowledge regarding such auction. He has submitted that fresh auction is required to be held. Accordingly, he has prayed to allow present petition.

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7375 of 2016

15. So far as Special Civil Application No.7375 of 2016 is concerned, Mr.M.B.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted the same facts, which are narrated in the memo of petition and has submitted that Kharaba land of revenue Survey No.304/1 of Village-Pipli was leased to the petitioner for two years initially and, thereafter, it was given on permanent basis by the concerned revenue authority and the petitioner is in possession thereof. While referring to documentary evidence on record, which includes C/SCA/142/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2022 maps and forms and other correspondence, learned counsel Mr.Gandhi has submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the land of Survey No.304/1 of Village-Pipli since 1967-68, whereas Gamtal of Village-Timbdi has been sanctioned later on. He has submitted that as per the letter of Pipli Gram Panchayat, the petitioner is occupying the land of Village-Pipli, and he is not in possession of the land of Village-Timbdi. While referring to letter of Collector and correspondence entered into between the Collector and the authorities below, he has submitted that from these letters, it appears that there is some mistake on the part of the revenue authorities in preparing Gamtal of Village-Timbdi and by super-imposing the Gamtal, the land of the present petitioner has been shown falling in Survey No.94/2 of Village-Timbdi. According to Mr.Gandhi, this act of the concerned officer cannot be treated as "encroachment by the petitioner" on the land of Timbdi Gram Panchayat.

16. Learned AGP Mr.Kanara for the respondent-State has submitted that the order of learned SSRD is proper and it may not be interfered with.

17. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for TDO has submitted written submissions and also submitted that through inadvertent mistake occurred in sanctioning new Gamtal for Village-Timbdi, by which actual land bearing Revenue Survey No.304/1 paiki of Village-Pipli was determined as new Gamtal. According to him, instead of land of Village-Timbdi, land of Village-Pipli was earmarked as new Gamtal. Resultantly, 76 C/SCA/142/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2022 plots (19 plots through public auction and 57 plots through pre-allotment) were allotted land bearing revenue Survey No.304/1 of Village-Pipli. He has submitted that this is nothing but an administrative error and it has come to light only after joint measurement by District Inspector of Land Records, Morbi, made on 25.5.2015. He has submitted that, in this set of facts, if the beneficiaries of allotment of this piece of land admeasuring 100 sq.yds. of village-Timbdi are ready and willing then they would be allotted the plots of Gamtal carved out of Revenue Survey No.94/2 of Village-Timbdi.

20. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides coupled with material placed on record and the decisions cited at bar, it emerges that as per order of Collector, Morbi, dated 16.6.1986, land admeasuring 4013 sq.mtrs. of revenue Survey No.94/2 of Village-Timbdi was sanctioned as new Gamtal. On that basis, District Inspector of Land Records, Rajkot, measured the land and submitted measurement sheet on 25.5.1988. It also reveals that in all 76 plots of new Gamtal were sanctioned by TDO, Morbi Taluka Panchayat, on 22.2.1991 relating to waste land bearing revenue Survey No.94 paiki, admeasuring 4 acres and 13 gunthas of Village- Timbdi. It also emerges that thereafter, revised plotting was sanctioned by TDO, Morbi, through his order dated 18.8.1999. It also reveals that thereafter some of the plots of Revenue Survey No.94 paiki were auctioned in the year 1990-91 and Sanad was issued in that regard. Requisite payment thereof C/SCA/142/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2022 was also made by the persons concerned. It also reveals from record that TDO has issued notification dated 30.1.1999 for auction of 16 plots of Survey No.94/2 and auction was to be held on 22.3.1999 and it was conducted in the presence of Sarpanch of Village panchayat as well as Circle Inspector, who has submitted the report that the auction has been carried out in accordance with law.

23. Now, the question arise as to whether the disputed land belongs to Gram Panchayat-Pipli or Gram Panchayat-Timbdi. It is pertinent to note that it is categorical admission on the part of TDO, Morbi Taluka that there was mistake in sanctioning of C/SCA/142/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2022 New Gamtal for Village-Timbdi and actual land bearing Revenue Survey No.304/1 paiki of Village-Pipli was determined as New Gamtal. In other words, it appears that instead of land of Village-Timbdi, land of Village-Pipli was earmarked as new Gamtal. As admitted by TDO, Morbi, resultantly 76 plots, which seems to be allotted is land bearing Survey No.304/1 of Village-Pipli. It appears that, at the relevant point of time, while sanctioning New Gamtal for Village-Timbdi, instead of doing actual measurement of the land and actual visit of the place by the concerned officer of the department, they have mechanically prepared the map by super-imposing the survey numbers at their leisure in their office and thereby created this sort of dispute, which is affecting not only the parties to the petition but also to both the Villages. Whether the error is inadvertent or not, it is for the administration to correct and rectify the mistake which is affecting the rights of the litigating parties and bring solution to the dispute by taking appropriate steps.