Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10981/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10981 of 2010
=========================================================
JETHIBEN
VALABHAI HARIJAN - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MANOJ SHRIMALI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR NK RA VAL AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 15/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the impugned order dated 28.09.1998 passed by the Special
Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad, in Revision
Application No. 69 of 1997, whereby the said revision application was
dismissed.
2. The
short facts of the case are that the land bearing Survey Nos. 124,
218, & 233, admeasuring 10 Acres & 1 Guntha was allotted to
the husband of the petitioner in the year 1966. The said land was
allotted as new tenure land. The husband of the petitioner expired on
31.01.1994 and thereafter the petitioner is cultivating the said
land. As there was breach of the condition of the allotment of the
land, Sharat Bhang Case No. 196/90 was came to be filed against the
petitioner, before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector, vide
order dated 08.10.1990 directed the Mamlatdar to take over the
possession of the land in question on the ground that the said land
had remained uncultivated for long time. Against the said order, the
petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 996/1997 before the
Collector, Jamnagar. The Collector, vide order dated 17.04.1997
dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner preferred Revision Application No. 69/97 before the
Special Secretary [Appeals] Revenue Department-respondent no. 1
herein. The Secretary [Appeals] respondent no. 1 vide order dated
28.09.1998 rejected the said revision application. Hence, this
petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The petitioner was granted the land in question in the
year 1966 for the purpose of cultivation. However, from the record
it appears that the petitioner had not cultivated the said land and
the same had remained uncultivated for many years. Therefore, in view
of the breach of the condition, the respondent authority had
cancelled the grant.
Looking to the facts of the case, and in view of the fact that the
petitioner had committed breach of condition of the grant, the
authorities
below were completely justified in passing the impugned orders.
4. Considering
the facts of the case, in my opinion, the respondent authorities were
completely justified in passing the impugned orders. I am in complete
agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by respondent
authorities and hence, find no reason to interfere with the same.
5. Consequently,
the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top