SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Guj) 787

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B.PARDIWALA, VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, JJ.
PARBATBHAI NAGDANBHAI DANGAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH THE SECRETARY & others - Respondent
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 777 of 2018
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6422 of 2018
Decided On : 06-10-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : MR DIGANT B KAKKAD
For The Respondent: MR KM ANTANI, AGP

Point of Law: Though the Collector is vested with the power to grant permission for use of agricultural land for non-agricultural use, it could not have been a time bound permission.

Headnote:

Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Section 67 - Land - Registered Sale Deed - Grant Permission For Use Of Agricultural Land For Non-Agricultural Use - Power of Attorney Holder of erstwhile owner, applied for non-agricultural permission with respect of land - It appears that non-agricultural permission was granted by Gram Panchayat - Thereafter, land was purchased by way of a registered sale deed - Subsequently, writ-applicant purchased said land from said erstwhile owner by a registered sale deed - It appears that with respect to non-agricultural permission granted by Gram Panchayat, a show cause came to be issued by respondent No.2, Collector, for breach of conditions mentioned in order.

Finding of the Court:

If a rule leads to an absurdity or manifest injustice from any adherence to it, Court can step in. A statute or a rule usually should be most agreeable to convenience, reason and should do justice to all - Approach of Bentham regarding law is to deliver maximum benefit/utility to people with minimum amount of friction/inconvenience to others - Every competent authority issuing non-agriculture permission shall attach Schedule-4 with order giving non agriculture permission without fail and it shall be clearly informed to applicant that this approval is given subject to conditions of Schedule-4 - In view of above, position of law is clear that though Collector is vested with power to grant permission for use of agricultural land for non-agricultural use, it could not have been a time bound permission - As on date construction is over and there is a existing structure as stated by learned counsel appearing for appellant - Since facts are undisputed and admitted, Court see no reason to relegate appellant to avail statutory alternative remedy.

Result: Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT :

VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.

1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original writ-applicant and is directed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 23.4.2018 in the Special Civil Application No.6422 of 2018 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ-application on the ground that the writ-applicant has alternative remedy of filing Revision Application against the order of the Collector.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarised as under :-

    2.1 One Mohanlal Laljibhai Patel, Power of Attorney Holder of erstwhile owner, applied for non-agricultural permission with respect of land bearing Survey No. 28, plot No. 190, Green City, Bypass road, Chobari, District Junagadh. It appears that non-agricultural permission was granted by the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, the land was purchased by way of a registered sale deed dated 28.3.2008 by one Indumati S. Dave and Manishaben M. Dave. Subsequently, the writ-applicant purchased the said land from the said erstwhile owner on 14.8.2015 by a registered sale deed. It appears that with respect to the non-agricultural permission granted on 9.12.1988 by the Gram Panchayat, a show cause came to be issued by respondent No.2, Collector, for breach of conditions mentioned in the order. The Collector proceeded to pass the order dated 7.3.2018 in the Case No.Land/1/C/5664/B.K.S.B./Case Reg.No.30/17-18, whereunder he imposed penalty of Rs.99,650/- upon the writ-applicant and extended the time period for completion of construction work for a period of one year in accordance with the conditions as stipulated in the main order dated 9.12.1998. The operative para of the order dated 7.3.2018 is produced thus :-

“(1) As per prevailing rate of non-agriculture assessment at Rs.0.25 Ps. per Sq. Mts., penalty of Rs.99650/- in words Rupees Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fifty only is imposed towards twenty years fine calculating Rs.4982.50 Ps. per year being 40 times premium of the non-agriculture assessment of Plot No.190, admeasuring 498.25 Sq. Mts. of Rs.124.56 Ps.

(2) The time-limit of the original non-agriculture order, is hereby extended for one year from the date of this order, to make construction in the plot in question as per the conditions of the original order of non-agricultural permission and conditions contained in the annexure. Remaining conditions shall remain unaltered.”

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Collector the writ-applicant approached this Court by filing the Special Civil Application No.6422 of 2018. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ-application made the following observations in paragraphs 5 to 7 which reads thus :-

    “5. There is no gainsaying that the petitioner has got the remedy of filling Revision Application against the order of the Collector impugned in this petition. When the alternative statutory remedy is available and the petitioner has not exhausted the same and has approached this court by invoking the writ jurisdiction directly, the court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition permitting the petitioner to bypass the alternative remedy.

5.1 All the contentions including those raised in the petition as well as raised during the course of hearing, can be raised by the petitioner in the alternative pursuit. Leaving all such contentions open, the petitioner is required to be relegated to the alternative remedy.

6. On the aforesaid ground alone, this petition is not entertained. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the higher forum, which is the alternative remedy under the law.

7. The petition stands dismissed accordingly.”

Submissions on behalf of the appellant (writ-applicant) :-

4. Mr. Digant B. Kakkad, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the land bearing Survey No. 28, plot No. 190, Green City, Bypass road, Chobari, District Junagadh was purchased by the appellant after 7 years of the order of grant

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top