Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14197/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14197 of 2011
=========================================================
PATEL
PRABHUDAS SHANKARLAL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SHITAL R PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS AMITA SHAH, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 15/11/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Petitioner
has preferred this petition under Articles 226 and also 227 of the
Constitution of India with following prayers:
Your
Lordship may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ or direction
either in the nature of mandamus or in the nature of certiorari or
any other appropriate writ or direction and please to by way of such
direction please direct the state government and/or Collector, Patan
to grant NA permission without insisting of any premium amount as
premium to land was already paid and land was converted from new to
old tenure in accordance with law subject to fulfillment of other
applicable laws.
Pending
admission and final disposal of the Petition by way of interim
relief, direct the state to issue suitable direction to Collector,
Patan to consider/grant NA application of the petitioner subject to
fulfillment of other law subject to final outcome of petition,
without insisting of payment of premium, as premium was already paid
and conversion from new to old tenure was already;
To
grant any other appropriate and just relief/s;
2. This
Court on 04.10.2011 passed following order:
Heard learned
advocate for the petitioner.
Learned advocate for
the petitioner has invited this Court’s attention to the
communication dated 23.10.2008 emanating from the office of the
Collector and signed by the Collector addressed to the State through
Revenue Department indicating therein unequivocally that the stand
of the State referred to in paragraph no.4 thereof is not
appropriate, in view of the fact that the premium on the land had
already been paid and the purpose was only for extension of time for
complying with the condition of non agricultural permission. This
communication had remained dormant. The notice, therefore, came to
be issued by learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner on
26.07.2011 to which in a mechanical way the Section Officer of the
Revenue Department has reacted and sent a reply that the notice and
proceedings are sent to Collector for doing needful.
This, in my view, is
not the approach commensurate with the duty cast upon the State when
the concerned District Collector has unequivocally opined in his
communication dated 23.10.2008 and when the notice was sent by
learned advocate addressed to the Secretary of the Revenue
Department, then naturally Collector is not the authority to decide
or sent any reply to the petitioner and in my view, therefore, the
appropriate authority i.e. State who should have replied to the
communication in form of notice sent by learned advocate for the
petitioner.
The notice,
therefore, is required to be issued for final disposal, returnable
on 14.10.2011. It is expected of the State to file reply, if any,
clarifying as to on what ground the communication of the Collector
dated 23.10.2008 is not acted upon. Direct service is permitted.”
2.1 Thus,
it was expected from the State to file reply clarifying as to on what
ground communication dated 23.10.2008 is not acted upon or
unfortunately, no reply is filed on behalf of the State. The reply,
which is filed is filed by one Jitendrakumar Joshi, Mamlatdar,
Siddhpur, who naturally could not have explained the enigmatic silent
on the part of the State, qua the contentions and reasoning reflected
in the communication dated 23.10.2008 as
well as the premium of Rs.82,550/- has been paid on 13.01.1984.
The order of this Court dated 04.10.2011, whereon this Court
categorically directed the State to file reply and give
justification, if any for not accepting the District Collector’s
letter dated 23.10.2008.
3. In
view of this, I am of the considered view that admission of the
matter would not serve the end of justice in any manner. The matter
which is now in a very narrow compass is required to put to an end by
giving directions. While disposing of this petition, following
directions are issued;
“The
Secretary, Revenue Department – respondent No.1 shall address
himself the issue in question in light of the observations and
reasonings reflected in the communication dated 23.10.2008 referred
to in the order of this Court dated 04.10.2011 and communicated his
reasons for issuance of letter dated 13.08.2008. In case, if there
exist no justification for levying the premium again, in light of the
observations and reasonings of District Collector reflected in the
letter dated 23.10.2008. The appropriate decision with regard to
granting N.A. be taken. The entire exercise of examining the issue at
the end of Revenue Secretary be undertake and complete within a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. In case, if
there is an adverse order passed by the authority, it would be open
for the petitioner to challenge the same before the appropriate
authority including filing of writ petition.”
4. With
these directions, petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged.
There shall be no order, as to costs. Direct Service is permitted.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
dks
Top