Point of law: When one examines the aspect of appeal preferred by the contesting respondents, one would find it difficult to accept as to how the right to appeal is said to have been conferred upon a third party who has failed in establishing any right before the civil court so far as the land in question is concerned. When the party has not obtained any order or has not been successful in obtaining any order in any manner from civil court, which is competent, i.e. only court to adjudicate upon and acknowledge their rights and title in the land in question, that party cannot be permitted to throw spanner in the wheels of development set in motion by the legitimate competent authority, whose entry is there in the revenue record.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(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 impugned communication dated 21.07.2018 issued by the respondent no.1 herein (Annexure-D);

(B) 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 directions by directing the respondent no.2 herein to consider and grant N.A. permission in favour of the petitioners herein for the land situated at Revenue Survey No.714 (Old Block No.993) admeasuring about 13826 Sq. Mt. of Village:-Vitthalpura, Taluka-Mandal, Dist:-Ahmadabad;

(B-1) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to direct Opponent No.3-District Collector to consider and grant N.A. Permission for the land in question.

(C) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct respondent no.2 herein to consider and grant N.A. permission in favour of the petitioners herein for the land situated at Revenue Survey No.714 (Old Block No.993) admeasuring about 13826 Sq. Mt. of Village:-Vitthalpura, Taluka-Mandal, Dist:-Ahmadabad;

(D) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;”

2. Heard Mr.S.P.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr.Chinmay Gandhi, learned advocate for respondent no.1 and Mr.Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP for respondent nos.2 and 3.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the suit land bearing Revenue Survey No.714 (Old Block No.993) admeasuring about 13826 sq.mtrs. of Village-Vitthalpura, Taluka-Mandal, District- Ahmedabad, and other lands of the adjoining villages were sought to be acquired in the year 1992 for the purpose of establishing industrial unit for Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC). It is contended that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of coming into force of the New Act in the year 2013 and, therefore, at present there is no acquisition proceeding pending for the land in question. According to the petitioner, it has purchased the said land by registered Sale Deed dated 3.1.2018 and has applied for NA permission before respondent no.2 and sought permission, partially for commercial construction and partially for residential construction. It is contended that upon that application, respondent no.2 has sought opinion from all the concerned authorities. According to the petitioner, except respondent no.1, all other authorities have given positive opinion for grant of NA permission to the petitioners. It is alleged that respondent no.1, by way of communication dated 21.7.2018, raised objections against grant of NA permission in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the Corporation has not dropped the purpose of establishing industrial unit and requested respondent no.2 not to grant NA permission in favour of the petitioners. It is contended that, due to that communication, the revenue authority is not proceeding with the application of the petitioners for NA permission. It is contended that respondent no.1 has no right or jurisdiction to raise any objections since acquisition proceeding has already lapsed and a communication made by respondent no.1 is contrary to the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.

3.1 Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners has also submitted that since earlier acquisition proceeding has lapsed and no further proceedings have been initiated under the New Act, respondent no.1 has no right or authority to object to grant of NA permission to the petitioner. While referring to Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, he has submitted that any occupier of the land can apply for NA permission and there is no need to show any title of the land. While refe