Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1684/2010 1/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1684 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6998 of 2009
with
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 9175 of
2010.
=========================================
PRAVINBHAI
LAVJIBHAI & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
Y J PATEL for Appellant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5,
1.2.6, 1.2.7, 1.2.8, 1.2.9, 1.3.1,1.3.2 - 2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3,
2.2.4, 2.2.5,2.2.6
MR UMESH TRIVEDI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 25/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE)
This
appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises out of order
dated 31.7.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6998 of 2009,
by the learned Single Judge, whereby the order dated 24-31/03/2009
made by Revisional Authority confirming order dated 21st
April, 2007 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar confirming
forfeiture of land granted to the petitioner, came to be rejected.
The
facts are not in dispute to the extent that appellant herein was
granted land on certain conditions to cultivate, and that from years
1985-86 to 1996-97 the land in question remained fallow and
accordingly the Deputy Collector, after following the procedure,
passed an order dated 30th August, 1997, by which the land
came to be vested into Government. In Appeal, the District
Collector, vide order dated 15th May, 1998, again
re-granted the very land and thereafter also for a period of about 4
years, the land remained uncultivated. Later on proceedings were
initiated, which went upto the Revisional Authority, and contention
of the appellants that the land was kept fallow because of
unauthorized encroachment by certain head-strong persons causing
disturbances and impediments, came to be rejected.
The
learned Single Judge, after perusal of the record and the orders
arrived at a conclusion that the factual finding of the Revenue
Authority, namely – Collector, Appellate Authority as well as
Revisional authority does not call for any interference in the
exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
We are in agreement with the above finding of the learned Judge,
whereby the order passed by the authorities have been confirmed and
it cannot be said that any error apparent on the face of the record
exists. The appeal, in absence of any merit, fails and is
accordingly rejected. CA also stands disposed of.
(S.J.
Mukhopadhaya, C.J.)
(Anant
S. Dave, J.)
*/Mohandas
Top