AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.Y. Kogje, J
These writ petitions are arising out of identical facts and are raising the same issues. Therefore, they are taken up for hearing jointly and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application No.14656 of 2022 is treated as the lead matter.
By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
“(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.5.2022 passed by Ld. Special Secretary Revenue Department, Ahmedabad – respondent no.2 herein in Revision Application No.MVV/BKP/MRB/02/ 2020 (Annexure-A), in the interest of justice.
(c) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.5.2019 passed by Ld. Collector, Morbi granting N.A. permission and converting land bearing Survey No.1098/p2/p1/1 admeasuring 14254.00 sq.mtrs. of village Vajepar, Tal. Morbi by being ORDER NO.CB/NA/MORBI/VAJEPAR/1098/p2/p1/p1/1009477/ 2019 dated 29.3.2019 and converting it from agriculture to non-agriculture use (Annexure-C), in the interest of justice.”
Learned advocate for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the revision application filed by the petitioner before the SSRD was not entertained by citing the previous round of litigation, wherein the same issue was also the subject matter of challenge before the SSRD and was finally decided on 30th August 2019 and thereafter there is no further challenge to the said order. Hence, the SSRD refused to exercise jurisdiction.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the proceedings which were cited by the SSRD were not initiated by a separate individual, though he may be related, but the right of the petitioner independently existed in the subject land and, therefore, by invoking the principle of res judicata, the revision application could not have been filed by the authorities.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that the subject land is also the subject matter in the Regular Civil Suit No.280 of 2019 before the Principal Civil Judge, which is still under consideration.
It is submitted that as the reliefs claimed in the civil suit goes to the root of the matter, therefore, it is prayed that the outcome of the civil suit may be taken into consideration by the revenue authority, which the revenue authority has not addressed in the impugned order.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocate and having perused the documents on record, the issue appears to be that against the disputed N.A. order of the Collector, Morbi, a revision application came to be filed before the Secretary, Revenue Department. It further appears that against the very order of the Collector, Morbi, earlier also a revision application was filed before the SSRD bearing Revision Application No.MVV/BKP/MRB/5/2019. The said revision application came to be decided vide order dated 30.8.2019. Therefore, on the principle of res judicata, there is a bar on the revision application filed by the petitioner. It further appears that the respondent had, as per rules and regulations, paid all the taxes, cess as well as premium amount to the Government. The Collector, Morbi, after gathering all the facts and considering the rules and regulations as well as the resolution, granted the N.A. permission to the respondent, therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the Collector. As the revision application filed by the petitioner is barred on the principles of res judicata, Secretary, Revenue Department, deemed it proper to file the revision application.
For the grounds agitated before this Court in the pleading, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition and to interfere with the impugned orders of the revenue authorities.
It is needless to observe that any decision in the civil litigation that is filed and pending in connection with the subject land will be binding on the parties as well as govern the revenue record.
With these observations, the petitions stand disposed of.