Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6682/1998 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6682 of 1998
=========================================
ASHOKKUMAR
HIRALAL THAKKAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR
JA ADESHRA for Petitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,1.2.4
MR KP
RAVAL ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR
NV ANJARIA for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 20/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the order dated 5/6.5.1998 passed by the respondent No.1 and
direct the respondent No.3 to grant permission to the petitioner for
putting up construction on the land alloted to the petitioner in
pursuance to the order dated 2.6.1994 passed by the learned
Collector, Mehsana, respondent No.2 herein.
2. The
petitioner applied to the Collector, Mehsana for grant of 225 Sq.
Mtr. of land at “Gugad-Patti”, Patan out of 17.278.12 Sq.
Mtr. of land reserved for industrial purpose in Revenue Survey
No.41/1 paiki, Sheet No.98, City Survey No.2145 for starting a motor
vehicle repairing service station in March, 1993. Thereafter, the
City Survey Superintendent, Patan prepared a Darkhast in pursuance to
the application of the petitioner for grant of 225 Sq. Mtr. of land.
The City Survey Superintendent, Patan had recommended the case of the
applicant for grant of land. Subsequently, the Darkhast was forwarded
to the Prant Officer, Patan, for verification and he took site
inspection and on 8.10.1993, and sent said Darkhast to Collector,
Mehsana. He also recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of
land. After verification and following procedure, the learned
Collector, Mehsana assessed the market price of the land at Rs.310/-
per Sq. Mtr. After obtaining no objection from the Chief Officer,
Municipality, the Collector, Mehsana addressed a letter dated
16.4.1994 to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.69,750/- with the
Government within 21 days and produce the challan.
3. The
Collector, Mehsana granted 225 Sq. Mtr. of land to the petitioner and
handed over the possession to the petitioner. Thereafter, on
8.8.1995, the petitioner applied to Patan Municipality for permission
to put up construction along with plan. The Chief Officer, Patan
Municipality rejected the application on 24.8.1995, as per the
decision taken vide Resolution No.30/95-96 dated 29.5.1995. But the
said Resolution has been quashed and set aside by the Collector,
Mehsana vide judgment and order dated 6.7.1995 and on the date of
passing the order, the said Resolution was no longer in existence.
The petitioner represented before the Patan Municipality for
permission to put up construction as the Resolution No.30/95-96 dated
29.5.1995, which was basis for rejection of application of the
petitioner, not in existence on the date of passing order dated
24.8.1995. On 12.6.1996, the President, Patan Municipality made
application before the Special Secretary (Revenue) Ahmedabad
challenging the decision of the Collector, Mehsana for granting the
land to the petitioner. The Special Secretary (Revenue) treated the
application of Patan Municipality under Section 211 of the Bombay
Land Revenue Code, however, said application was made after two
years from the date of the order of Collector, Mehsana. Thereafter,
another show cause notice on 30.3.1998 and hearing was fixed on
7.4.1998. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not given
sufficient time to go from Patan to Ahmedabad and at that time, the
petitioner at that time. The respondent No.1 – Special
Secretary (Revenue) instead of deciding the question of admission of
Revision Application and without even looking into or considering the
reply of the petitioner dated 23.9.1996 decided to proceed with the
final hearing of the main mater on 7.4.1998. The matter was finally
decided on 5/6.5.1998 and the order of the Collector, Mehsana was
quashed and set aside and direction was issued for fresh hearing
after affording opportunity to the Municipality.
4. Today,
learned advocate Mr. Adeshara appearing on behalf of the petitioner
filed one additional affidavit, wherein it is stated that originally
the plots of land were granted to five persons namely (1) Kokilaben
Ashokkumar Thakkar on 2.6.1994 (2) Patel Govindbhai Mohanbhai on
15.4.1996 (3) Patel Uttamkumar Ranchhodbhai on 14.5.1996 (4)
Rajendrakumar Jayantilal Amin on 12.7/1994 and (5) Panchal Pragati
Kelvani Mandal on 16.5.1996. He submitted that thereafter, the State
Government has cancelled the allotment of the land. Later on, the
lands have been re-granted to four persons except the petitioner, as
stated above. Therefore, it is submitted that the order of
re-granting the land passed by the Collector is biased and against
the principle of natural justice.
5. Learned
advocate Mr. Anjaria, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3
submitted that if the case is remanded back to the Collector for
taking fresh decision, he has no objection.
6. I
have considered the submissions made by the parties and also perused
the record. I have also perused the order dated 5/6.5.1998, whereby
the Collector was directed to decide the matter afresh. It appears
that the matter is pending now before the Collector, Patan to decide
afresh and since the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
Municipality has no objection if the Collector, Patan is directed to
take appropriate decision within two months after giving opportunity
to the Municipality for hearing, in accordance with law.
7. In
view of the above observation, the petition is disposed of.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.)
ynvyas
Top