Mingalpur Gopalak and Ganotiya Co-Op. Soc. Ltd. vs State of Gujarat and Others

M.R. Shah, J.—By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner society has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority - Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat in Revision Application No. 3 of 1995 dtd.18/2/2000, by which the revisional authority has dismissed the said Revision Application confirming the order passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad dtd.19/9/1994 passed in Remand/Appeal No. 59 of 1994, by which the Collector, Ahmedabad has passed an order to forfeit the land to the State Government for breach of condition of grant.

It appears that the land in question was granted to the Petitioner society on certain terms and conditions and one of the conditions was that the land shall be cultivated by the members of the said society. Necessary Kabulatnana was also given by the Petitioner at the relevant time to abide by the terms and conditions of the said grant. Consequently it was found that the members of the society are not residing in the same village and in fact the land in question was not being cultivated and was occupied as uncultivated (Padtar) for number of years and hence inquiry was initiated for breach of condition of grant and the Dy. Collector passed order dtd.30/8/1986 forfeiting the land to the State Government. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Dy. Collector, Dholka dtd.30/8/1996 in Breach of Condition Case No. 2 of 1996, the Petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector, Ahmedabad which came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation, against which the Petitioner society preferred Revision Application before the State Government being Revision Application No. 30 of 1993 and the revisional authority allowed the said Revision Application remanding the matter to the Collector, directing the Collector to decide and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law and on merits. Thereafter on remand the Collector, Ahmedabad passed order dtd.19/9/1994 dismissing the said appeal confirming the order passed by the Dy. Collector, Dholka dtd.30/8/1986 forfeiting the land to the State Government. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad in Remand/Appeal No. 59 of 1994, the Petitioner society preferred Revision Application before the SSRD being Revision Application No. 3 of 1995 and by the impugned order the revisional authority has dismissed the said Revision Application confirming the orders passed by both the authorities below forfeiting the land to the State Government. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned orders the Petitioner society has preferred the present Special Civil Application.

Having heard Mr. B.G. Patel, learned advocate appearing for Mr. B.J. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and considering the impugned orders, it appears that the land in question was granted to the society for the purpose of cultivation by its members and even necessary Kabulatnama was also given by the society to abide by the terms and conditions of the grant. There are concurrent finding of facts recorded by all the authorities below that the members of the Petitioner society are not residing in the same village and did not cultivate the land in question at all and it has been found that for number of years, the land in question has been kept uncultivated (Padtar) and has not been used for the purpose for which it was allotted.

Considering the above, when it was found that the purpose for which the land was granted to the Petitioner society, has been frustrated and the land has not been used for the purpose for which it was granted and there was branch of condition of grant and when the Dy. Collector has passed order after holding necessary inquiry to forfeit the land to the State Government, which came to be confirmed by the Collector as well as the revisional authority, it cannot be said that the authorities below have committed any error and/or illegality in forfeiting the land to the State Government. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is not in a position to satisfy the Court how the aforesaid orders are illegal and/or contrary to the evidence on record.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the petition fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated forthwith. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.