Once breach of condition of NA permission is found, the concerned authority is authorized to impose penalty, order removal of construction, and even summary eviction of unauthorized occupants.

C.L. Soni, J.

1. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- Market Committee and its Chairman have challenged the order dated 24.10.2008 at Annexure-A passed by respondent No. 2 and the order dated 11.3.2011 at Annexure-B passed by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No. 3 of 2009 preferred by respondent Nos. 4 to 13 herein.

2. By the order dated 24.10.2008, the respondent No. 2 cancelled Non-Agricultural Permission (NA permission) granted under Section 65 of the Land Revenue Code ('the Code') for breach of the condition of such permission and ordered the Chairman/Secretary to remove all constructions from the land for which NA permission was granted. Such order has come to be confirmed by the Additional Secretary by rejecting the revision application preferred by respondent Nos. 4 to 13.

3. It appears from the facts stated in the petition as also from the orders impugned in the present petition that land bearing Survey No. 1330 admeasuring 1 acre 35 gunthas situated at village Lodra, Taluka Vijapur, which belonged to respondent No. 3, was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and allotted to the Vijapur Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The Vijapur Agricultural Produce Market Committee then asked for NA permission which was granted for the purpose of Sub Market Yard by the order dated 5.1.1969. Subsequently, revised NA permission was granted by order dated 5.4.1971 for the purpose of construction of Lodra Sub Market Yard. However, it was found that use of the land for Lodra Sub Market Yard continued only upto 1981-82 and shop Nos. 13 to 19 admeasuring 416.20 Sq. Mtrs. were not used for market yard but used for residential and other commercial purposes. The Project Officer-cum-Taluka Development Officer (TDO), therefore, initiated proceeding for breach of condition and imposed fine of Rs. 6650/- by order dated 19.11.1994. This order was challenged by the Vijapur Market Committee by preferring Revision Application No. 6 of 1995. The Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) while rejecting the revision application observed that for breach of the condition of NA permission, the concerned authority should take appropriate action for cancelling the NA permission after issuing notices to the concerned parties. Against this order, the Vijapur Market Committee preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 123 of 1996 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), which was then transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.).

4. It appears that on bifurcation of talukas, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Mansa - petitioner No. 1 was established for market area of Mansa Taluka by notification dated 29.9.2001 and Lodra Market Yard came to be transferred to Mansa Market Committee. Thereupon, the above-referred suit was transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar, where it was renumbered as Regular Civil Suit No. 52 of 2005 and then the said suit was dismissed by order dated 9.2.2007, against which Regular Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2007 preferred by the Market Committee was also dismissed by judgment dated 4.2.2008. It was thereafter, the respondent No. 2 initiated the proceedings for breach of condition of NA permission and passed order for cancellation of NA permission and for removal of the construction used for the purpose contrary to condition of NA permission.

5. The above-said order of cancellation of NA permission passed by respondent No. 2 and for removal of the construction for breach of the condition of NA permission was not challenged by the petitioners before the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department but the same was challenged by respondent Nos. 4 to 13 by preferring revision application before the Additional Secretary which, as stated above, came to be rejected. In the revision application preferred by respondent Nos. 4 to 13, petitioner No. 1 Market Committee was joined as respondent No. 9.

6.