Sushulaben W/O Dahyabhai Desaibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat

A.Y. Kogje, J

[1] This petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for following reliefs:-

“(A)1 Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 26/10/2021 passed by Special Secretary, Revenue (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. MVV/BKHP/AMD/32/2020 and also the order dated 13/07/2020 passed by the Collector, Anmedabad in Application No. 1518/07/04/11.2020;

Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 26/10/2021 passed by Special Secretary, Revenue (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. MVV/BKHP/AMD/32/2020 and also the order dated 13/07/2020 passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad in Application No. 1518/07/04/11.2020 in the interest of justice;

[2] Essentially the objection is to grant of NA permission to the private respondent.

[3] Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure-G, which is the objection given by the petitioners to the Collector against the grant of of NA permission in favour of the respondent No.3.

[4] Learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court to the revenue record on page 24A, 25A and 26A to indicate the chronology by which the ancestors of the petitioners were re-granted the land in question.

[5] Learned advocate therefore, submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that how the respondent No.3 came in occupation of the land and how the subsequent entries were made despite the names of the ancestors of the petitioners were running in the name of revenue record and without their knowledge and behind their back, the subsequent entries have been made and therefore, the right of the petitioners to exit on the land as well as in revenue record will subsist.

[6] The Court has taken into consideration the submission made by learned advocate as well as documents on record. The issue pertain to one respondent No.3 submitted an application to the Collector on 17.6.2020 give permission for non-agriculture purpose under Section-65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Act, 1879 with respect to the land with Survey No./Block No.255, Area 2599 Sq.M. of moje Manipur, Taluka–Sanand, District–Ahmedabad. The impugned order has been passed the Collector, Ahmedabad dated 13.07.2020 to give permission for the non-agriculture purpose (multi-purpose use) with respect to the land in dispute.

[7] The petitioners has submitted a revision application against the said order. The name of Chhaganji @ Shanaji Ramtuji has been entered as a tenant by the Ganot Case No.8190/85 dated 05.10.1987 of the Mamlatdar and Krishi Panch, Anand. With respect to the unlawfulness of the said order, the petitioners submitted a revision application with Ganot Revision Case No.12/2020 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. As the Collector passed the order for non-agriculture despite this fact, a representation has been made to revoke the said order. No injunction has been given against the respondent in the said Tenancy Act proceedings. However, the execution shall be done on record as per the decision made in the proceedings of the Tenancy Act. The Entry No. 3303 of the order of the Mamlatdar and Krishi Panch, Ahmedabad dated 05.10.1987 has been entered in record on 01.05.1987. Thereafter, the heirs of the tenant entered have sold the land in dispute to Jignesh Nanjibhai Thakor through a registered sale deed. He has sold it to Vivekbhai Prahladbhai Patel and Vivekbhai Prahladbhai Patel has sold it to respondent No.3. In this regard, Entry No.3721, 4211 and Entry No.5359 have been made and verified, respectively. Thus, the order dated 25.10.1987 of the Mamlatdar and Krishi Panch, Ahmedabad and the entry made on its basis and the sale deeds made thereafter and the entries made on their basis have not been revoked by the competent authority, neither the petitioners in this case have challenged all the said entries. By this fact, the locus standi of the petitioners is also not established with respect to the land in dispute. On the basis of all these facts, the representation made by the petitioners is not acceptable. With respect to the online application dated 17.06.2020 of the respondent No.3, the Collector followed the procedure of giving permission for non-agriculture and passed the order to give permission for non-agriculture subject to the conditions on the basis of the facts mentioned in the details of the affidavit after ensuring that the respondent No.3 has paid the conversion tax, special cess, local fund, education cess and measurement fee. In this manner, it appears that the Collector has carried out the procedure in connection with the present policy of the Government regarding giving permission for non-agriculture.

[8] The Court has also taken into consideration the representation made by the petitioners, raising objection to grant of NA permission in favour of the respondent No.3, wherein the Court finds that there is no averment to claim that the petitioners are agriculturists and are actually carrying out agricultural activity on the subject land. Over and above, the crucial entry is of the year 1987 being entry No.3303 dated 05.10.1987, which as per the petitioners, is also challenged by them before the Deputy Collector under a Revision Case No.12 of 2020. However, there is nothing on record to indicate the outcome or status of such revision application.

[9] Though the learned advocate has tried to submit that the petitioners have also filed a Civil Suit in this connection, however, in the opinion of the Court, the order by the Collector to grant NA permission, at this stage and in the facts of this case, cannot not be interfered.

[10] With the above, the petition deserves to be and the same is hereby dismissed.