Patel Jadavji Shivji Vekaria vs State of Gujarat and Another

J.B. Pardiwala, J.—The Appellant, original Petitioner, through his Power of Attorney holder seeks to challenge by way of this appeal the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 9.11.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No. 58 of 2008; wherein, learned Single Judge dismissed the petition.

Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present appeal can be summarized as under:

2.1 Before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, the Appellant prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the State Government to allot land situated at revenue survey No. 34/4 of Village: Mirjapur, District: Kachchh ad-measuring 4 Acres on permanent basis and by way of amendment has also prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 21.6.2003 at Annexure-C to the petition and the order dated 28.8.2003 at Annexure-E to the petition. Appellant also prayed before the learned Single Judge for an appropriate writ, order and direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.5.2008 passed by Collector, Kachchh in rejecting the representation of the Appellant which was made pursuant to the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 26836 of 2007.

The record reveals that the land in question bearing Revenue Survey No. 34/4 of Village: Mirjapur, ad-measuring about 4 Acres was divided into 3 parts and was allotted to 4 persons on a lease for a period of 30 years. The Appellant is one amongst those 4 persons. The Appellant raised a grievance that 3 other identically situated persons have been allotted land by the State Government on permanent basis and therefore, he also requested the Respondents to allot him his part of the land on permanent basis. It appears that Appellant preferred an application on 15.4.94 for permanent allotment of the land in question relying upon Government Resolution dated 1.1.1987 as well as other circulars of the State Government. The application of the Appellant was rejected by the Collector, Kachchh vide order dated 21.6.2003 on the ground that there is no policy to grant the land on permanent basis. This order of the Collector was challenged by filing Revision Application before the State Government u/s 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code i.e. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat. The Secretary (Appeals) also rejected the revision application holding that same was not maintainable.

It deserves to be noted that from the date of order passed by Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, the Appellant remained silent for a period of 4 years. After 4 years, he preferred Special Civil Application No. 26836 of 2007 for allotment of the land on permanent basis contending that with respect to some other persons, the land has been allotted on permanent basis and though Appellant is identically situated, he has been discriminated. Special Civil Application No. 26836 of 2007 was disposed of by learned Single Judge by asking the Petitioner to approach the Authority with appropriate prayer for allotting the land on permanent basis. It appears that the representation preferred by the Appellant on the strength of the order which was passed by learned Single Judge while disposing of Special Civil Application No. 26836 of 2007 came to be rejected on the ground that in view of the revised policy of the State Government dated 1.1.1987, no land is permissible to be allotted on permanent basis. Aggrieved by this decision, Appellant once again preferred Special Civil Application No. 58 of 2008. Surprisingly, in Special Civil Application No. 58 of 2008 the Appellant not only challenged the communication dated 26.5.2008 of the Collector, Kachchh rejecting the representation of the Appellant but also challenged the orders passed way back in the year 2003 by Collector, Kachchh and Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department.

Learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ petition took notice of the following aspects:

The land which was granted by the Authorities to other persons on permanent basis was on the strength of Resolution dated 27.11.1969 which provided for allotment of the land on permanent basis. The case of the Appellant herein was not covered by Resolution dated 27.11.1969 because by the time the Appellant applied for allotment in the year 1994 on permanent basis, the Resolution dated 1.1.1987 was in force and vide this Resolution, the State Government changed its policy by not allotting the land on permanent basis.

Learned single Judge noticed that there was no discrimination with the others as alleged by the Appellant and therefore, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Learned single Judge noticed that even as on today, there is no lease in favour of the Appellant original writ Petitioner as the lease period has already expired.

Learned single Judge also took notice of the fact that there was inordinate delay at the end of the Appellant in challenging the orders dated 21.6.2003 and 28.8.2003 passed by the Collector and Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department respectively.

We are in complete agreement with the reasonings assigned by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ petition and we do not find any error much less an error of law warranting any interference in this appeal. We are of the view that in the matter of policy decision, the scope of judicial review is very limited unless the decision is shown to be contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution, the Court cannot examine merits of different policy and cannot struck down the same merely on ground that another policy would have been fairer and better. The Government is entitled to make pragmatic decision and policy decision which might be necessary or called for under certain circumstances. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the nature of dispute, we do not find that any fundamental right or any legal right of the Appellant has been infringed.

The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.