2020 Supreme(Guj) 454

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. Supehia, J.
Irfan Yakub Bholat & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Gujarat & Others - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 16814 of 2018
Decided On : 03-03-2020

Point of Law:
Petitioners cannot plead ignorance of provisions of Rule 25-C of the Tenancy Rules, since the predecessor-in-title had applied under the provisions of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act to convert his land from "new tenure" to "old tenure". It is not open for them to contend that though the predecessor-in-title holder was aware of provision of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act, but was unaware of provisions of Rule 25-C of the Tenancy Rules.

Headnote:

Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - section 43 - Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Section 65 - Tenancy Act - Section 43 - Petitioners have prayed for following prayers issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing DDO to accept conversion charges for N.A. permission for residential purpose code in respect of land bearing Revenue Survey/Block and at village and to decide application for N.A permission as expeditiously as possible - Petitioners are seeking a declaration of accepting their conversion charges for non-agriculture permission relating to residential purpose Gujarat Land Revenue Code in respect of land bearing Survey Block of Village - Petition is further prayed that respondents may be directed to decide application of petitioners for non-agriculture permission by ignoring opinion given by District Collector without insisting any amount of premium as envisaged - Petitioners that land bearing Block situated at Village District originally belonged to one Musa who was an agricultural tenant mutated in revenue record vide Entry - Held, Court submitted that if the authority fails to inform petitioners of its decision on application within a period of three months permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted - In support of above submissions advocate placed reliance on decision of this Court in case - Court opposed submission that provisions Rule are merely directory and not mandatory - He referred to text of provisions submitted that said Rules are mandatory - Court also supplemented said submission by contending that even if it is assumed that said provisions are directory then also in view of fact that despite provision said Rule appellants did not seek extension of time it would now not be open to petitioners to claim that by taking a lenient view about violation petitioners should be let-off with imposition of some fine - He submitted that there are three concurrent orders recording finding of fact authorities have taken same view against appellant - Petitioners and said decisions have found favor with Single Judge also inasmuch as the said orders have been confirmed by rejecting petition and that in view of concurrent decisions at stages and then by Judge appeal does not deserve to be entertained - Petition dismissed (Para 5)

Facts of the Case:

Petitioners are seeking a declaration of accepting their conversion charges for non-agriculture permission relating to the residential purpose under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code) in respect of land bearing Survey / Block Nos.377 and 378 of Village Kosamba, Taluka Mangrol, District Surat. It is further prayed that the respondents may be directed to decide the application of the petitioners for non-agriculture permission by ignoring the opinion dated 21.08.2018 given by the District Collector, Surat, without insisting any amount of premium as envisaged under section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

Finding of the Court:

Court submitted that if the authority fails to inform petitioners of its decision on application within a period of three months permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted - In support of above submissions advocate placed reliance on decision of this Court in case - Court opposed submission that provisions Rule are merely directory and not mandatory - He referred to text of provisions submitted that said Rules are mandatory - Court also supplemented said submission by contending that even if it is assumed that said provisions are directory then also in view of fact that despite provision said Rule appellants did not seek extension of time it would now not be open to petitioners to claim that by taking a lenient view about violation petitioners should be let-off with imposition of some fine - He submitted that there are three concurrent orders recording finding of fact authorities have taken same view against appellant - Petitioners and said decisions have found favor with Single Judge also inasmuch as the said orders have been confirmed by rejecting petition and that in view of concurrent decisions at stages and then by Judge appeal does not deserve to be entertained.

Result: Petition dismissed