Point of Law: Court itself is not authorised to approach by way of this petition with no interest of theirs having been left in the property. Moreover, the order of the Collector is based on the lay out plan made at the time of non-agricultural land.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have preferred this petition in connection with land bearing Survey No.1062 admeasuring 140.49 sq.meters situated in Mehsana. The owners of this property Suthar Jitendrakumar Amrutlal and Trikamlal Damodardas were granted the land under Schedule-H of section 133 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 ("the Code" for short), which has been converted into nonagricultural land. The owners had put up construction and they continued to pay necessary taxes to the Municipality.

2. The property purchased by the petitioners was by a registered sale deed executed on 29.11.1991. The petitioners were also registered as occupants by the City Survey Superintendent on 11.12.1991.

3. On 07.02.1992, the petitioners submitted an application to Mehsana Urban Development Authority with a request to permit construction, which was allowed by resolution No.3(7) of the Town Planning Committee dated 22.04.1992. Necessary charges were also paid on 27.04.1992. The petitioners had desired construction of shops on the Plot No.12 of Revenue Survey No.1119 paiki and the total area of plot is 140 sq.meters and the built up was proposed as 38.65 sq.meters and the permissible built up area was 56.19 sq.meters. Rest of the area was to be kept open as per the rules.

4. The petitioners constructed these shops and they were sold to different persons in the year 1993 by way of different registered sale deed. The names of these purchasers also have been recorded in the property card.

5. On 04.12.2000, the District Collector issued the notice to about four persons, which included the present petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have put up construction in the margin land, which was impermissible. This was replied on 16.01.2001 where the details were provided as to how their permission for construction was sought. On 31.01.2001, the District Collector, after hearing the parties, passed an order on the ground that the petitioners have constructed property contrary to the lay out plan sanctioned and ordered to remove such construction.

6. A revision application was filed being Application No.9 of 2001 under section 29H of the Code before the Special Secretary on 20.02.2001. The order of status quo was passed. However on 08.03.2001 Joint Secretary, Revenue Department dismissed the revision application by confirming the order of District Collector dated 31.01.2001. Therefore, the present petition with the following prayers:

“(18) The petitioner, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prays that:

(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order 23.03.2007 passed by the Joint Secretary, Revenue Department, in Revision Application No.9 of 2001 (at Annexure-P hereto) as well as order 31.01.2001 passed by the District Collector in N.A./Sharatbhang/Case No.56 of 2000 (at Annexure-L hereto);

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this writ petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of order 23.03.2007 passed by the Joint Secretary, Revenue Department, in Revision Application No.9 of 2001(at Annexure-P hereto) as well as order 31.01.2001 passed by the District Collector in N.A./Sharatbhang/Case No.56 of 2000 (at Annexure-L hereto);

(C) Such other and further relief, as are deemed fit, in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly be granted.”

7. This Court, while issuing rule, granted interim relief in terms of paragraph No.18B and the same has continued to protect the petitioner as there has been a stay on the further operation and prevention of the order dated 23.03.2007 passed by the Joint Secretary in Revision Application No.9 of 2001, which confirmed the order of the District Collector dated 31.01.2001.

8. Affidavit-in-reply is filed by Resident Additional Collector, Mehsana, who denied a