Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10091/1994 6/ 6 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10091 of 1994
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
ARUNABEN
KANUBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AR MAJMUDAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.3.1, 1.3.2,
1.3.3,1.3.4
MR RASHESH RINDANI, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 27/01/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for quashing and setting-aside the
order passed by the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department,
Gujarat State, Ahmedabad on 23rd November 1993,
cancelling the N.A. permission granted by the District Development
Officer vide his order dated 9th July 1986.
This
Court has issued notice on 8th December 1994 and
ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 7(C) of the petition was
granted. The ad-interim relief granted was ordered to be continued
subject to reserving liberty to the respondent to move appropriate
application for vacating the interim relief. During the pendency of
this petition, the petitioner has expired and her heirs and legal
representatives are brought on record on 11th May 2009.
The
brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the
petitioner was the owner of the land bearing Survey No.114,
admeasuring 4957 sq.meters situated at village Tarsali, Taluka and
District Baroda. The petitioner has been given exemption under
Section 20 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act for the aforesaid land. The
petitioner was in actual possession of the remaining land. The
exemption under Section 20 of the Act with regard to the land of the
aforesaid survey number was granted to the petitioner by order dated
12th December 1980. However, the same was cancelled
subsequently by order dated 30th August 1983.
It
is also the case of the petitioner that out of total land of Survey
No.114, the petitioner had applied for N.A. permission of 1499.58
sq.meters of land to the District Development Officer under Section
65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The District Development
Officer, vide his order dated 9th July 1986, granted N.A.
permission for the said land. The said order was, however, taken in
review after 7 years and by an order dated 23rd November
1993 the said N.A. permission was cancelled. It is this order of
cancellation of N.A. permission which is under challenge in the
present petition.
Mr.A.R.Majmudar,
the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has raised
two-fold contentions while challenging the impugned order. He
submitted that the petitioner has applied for N.A. permission only
to the extent of land retained by him. He has further submitted that
the order granting N.A. permission was taken in suo-motu review by
the learned Secretary after 7 years, which is contrary to the
settled legal position. He has, therefore, submitted that the
impugned order deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
Mr.Rashesh
Rindani, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent no.1 State, on
the other hand, submitted that the exemption under Section 20 of the
Act was granted only for making use of the land in question for
agricultural purpose. The said land was not allowed to be used for
non-agricultural purpose. Since the District Development Officer has
granted N.A. permission for construction of residential houses, the
said order is not in accordance with the permission granted under
Section 20 of the Act and hence, the said order was taken in review.
He has, therefore, submitted that no interference is required to be
called for in the impugned order passed by the learned Secretary.
Having
heard the learned counsels for the parties and having gone through
the impugned orders, the Court is of the view that the petitioner
has filled form no.6 and one unit was allowed to be retained by her.
Only qua that unit she has applied for N.A. permission, which was
duly granted. So far as the remaining unit is concerned, the
permission was sought for under Section 20 of the Urban Land Ceiling
Act, which was initially granted. The same was subsequently
withdrawn. However, that would not affect the N.A. permission
granted to the petitioner in respect of the unit allowed to be
retained by her and hence, cancellation of N.A. permission on that
ground is not justified. Even otherwise, the impugned order is
passed after 7 years from the date of granting N.A. permission,
which is not justified on any count and is contrary to the settled
legal position.
Considering
the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the legal
position, the Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by
the learned Secretary on 23rd November 1993 deserves to
be quashed and set-aside and, it is accordingly quashed and
set-aside.
This
petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute without any
order as to cost.
(K.A.Puj,
J.)
/moin
Top