Back
2009 Supreme(Guj) 351
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
ROHINI HOUSING COMPLEX OWNER'S ASSO.-Petitioner(s)
Versus
RAIBEN WD/O DHIRAJ UGRAJI & 6 - Respondent(s)
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.12145 of 2008
To
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.12162 of 2008
Decided on : 18/06/2009
MR MJ THAKORE, SENIOR COUNSEL, with MR TATTVAM K PATEL for Petitioner(s): 1,
MR JITENDRA M PATEL with MR JAYRAJ CHAUHAN, MR AJ PATEL, MR VIMAL A PUROHIT with MR SP MAJMUDAR for the respondents
MS MANISHA L SHAH, AGP for Respondent-State
Headnote:
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Section 65 - Bombay Non-Trading Corporation Act - Special Civil Application - Group of petitions has been heard together as they arise out of common order made by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in various applications moved before the Tribunal by different persons - Held, Before parting it is necessary to suggest to the State Government to take note of the fact that the order made under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act by the Deputy Collector and Prant Officer, is not an order made in accordance with law and in normal course - Entire tone and tenor of the order indicates that the order has been made not on basis of merits but for collateral consideration, in collusion with at least, which is to the detriment of the State Government - State Government should, therefore, it is expected, initiate appropriate inquiry in this regard and take necessary action, if warranted - For this purpose, a copy of this judgment and order, shall be forwarded to both, the Chief Secretary and the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government, by the Registry, through the Office of the Government Pleader - Petition rejected. (Para 68)
1. This group of petitions has been heard together as they arise out of common order made by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 21.08.2008 in various applications moved before the Tribunal by different persons. The parties have treated the group of petitions bearing Special Civil Application Nos.12145 of 2008 to 12149 of 2008 as the main matter considering the fact that all the pleadings and the supporting documents are available in the record of Special Civil Application No.12145 of 2008 and hence, the facts are taken from the said petition.
2. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.12145 of 2008 to 12149 of 2008 is common, namely, Rohini Housing Complex Owners' Association (hereinafter referred to as 'Rohini'). Respondent Nos.1 to 3, namely, Raiben wd/o Dhiraji Ugraji, Vihaji Dhiraji and Bachuji Dhiraji are the original land owners of land bearing Block No.84 of Village Khatraj, Taluka Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question'). There are other lands also bearing different block numbers but for the present the same description reference shall suffice. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the original land owners'. Though the petitioner has stated that the land in question is owned and occupied by the petitioner-Rohini, the said fact is contradicted and hence, the ownership and occupation of the petitioner is not accepted for the time being. In fact the basis of the claimed ownership, being various registered sale documents, stated to have been executed by the original land owners in favour of Rohini, are under challenge, there being pending proceedings for cancellation of the said documents before a competent Court.
3. The original land owners moved Taluka Development Officer, Kalol (TDO) on 13/14.04.1982 seeking permission under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the BLR Code) for putting the agricultural land to non-agricultural use, mainly for purposes of residential use. On 17.04.1982 the TDO vide order No.202/1982 permitted the change of use of the land in question from agricultural to non-agricultural. Between 13.06.1982 to 17.08.1982 the original land owners executed various registered sale deeds in favour of Rohini. It is an admitted fact that Rohini is an association registered only under the Bombay Non-Trading Corporation Act.
4. The order made by TDO was taken in suo motu revision by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) and vide order dated 29.08.1983, NA permission granted by TDO was cancelled holding that the TDO had no jurisdiction to decide such a NA application. Rohini as well as other persons, including the original land owners, challenged the order of revisional authority by filing various petitions before this High Court. Vide judgment rendered on 03.04.1987 (as reported in 28 (2) GLR 760) the High Court upheld the order made by the Special Secretary by observing as under:
... The Taluka Development Officer, Kalol, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications of the petitioner dated 13/14th April 1982 for grant of permission under sec. 65 of the Code. The order passed by the Taluka Development Officer dated 19/20th April 1982 granting permission to the petitioners for making non-agricultural use of their lands was, therefore, without authority and wholly void. The Secretary (Appeals) was, therefore, right in concluding that the order passed by the Taluka Development Officer, Kalol granting permission to make non-agricultural use of the lands in question was ab initio void and, therefore, a nullity.
5. The judgment rendered by learned Single Judge was carried in appeal by way of various Letters Patent Appeals and vide order dated 25.06.1992 the following order came to be made by the Division Bench:
Mr.N.D. Nanavati, learned Counsel for the respondent No.4-District Panchayat states, on instructions from the District Development Officer, that the District Panchayat will process N.A. App
