The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide questions relating to the tenure of the land, and the Collector is bound to follow the decision of the Tribunal and grant N.A. permission to the private petitioner.

ORDER :

1. By way of filing Special Civil Application No. 22072 of 2017, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the District Collector, Surat and for further direction to the District Collector, Surat to comply with the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 24.06.2015 in Revision Application No. 18 of 2015 and thereby to grant N.A. permission to the land bearing Final Plot No. 92 admeasuring 3574 sq. mtrs. in T.P. Scheme No. 29 situated in the sim of Village-Rundh, Surat.

2. So far as facts giving rise to Special Civil Application No. 22072 of 2017 are concerned, the same are as under:

2.1 That one Dhirajram Trambakram was the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 28/4 admeasuring 5500 sq. mtrs. at village Rundh, Taluka Surat. He executed sale deed dated 22.07.1963 in favour of one Mangiben Somabhai and Baniben Somabhai and revenue Entry No. 280 was mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, Mangiben Somabhai and others have executed a registered sale deed dated 20.03.2002 in favour of one Babulal Banwarlal and Mohanlal Kuberbhai. The revenue entry No. 1206 came to be mutated on 25.07.2005 and certified on 27.09.2005. Thereafter Babulal Banwarlal and Mohanlal Kuberbhai have executed registered sale deed dated 13.11.2006 in favour of the present petitioner and revenue entry No. 1611 came to be mutated in revenue record on 29.01.2009 and certified on 01.06.2009.

2.2 The petitioner states that thereafter said land bearing Survey No. 28/4 admeasuring 5500 sq. mtrs. of Village Rundh came to be included in Town Planning Scheme No. 29 (Rundh-Vesu-Magdalla) and Final Plot No. 92 admeasuring 3574 sq. mtrs. was given to the petitioner. Thereafter, since the land was included in Town Planning Scheme, petitioner applied for NA permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code before the Collector. The learned Collector, vide communication dated 14.02.2014 informed the petitioner that he has sought opinion from various authorities and upon receipt of the opinion, the application will be considered.

2.3 Thereafter, vide order dated 23.05.2014, District Collector has rejected the said application dated 13.02.2014 on flimsy grounds. The petitioner states that thereafter petitioner filed detailed application dated 25.06.2014 explaining and clarifying the objections for rejection cited by the Collector in his earlier order dated 23.05.2014. Petitioner explained each and every circumstance and again requested to reopen the application and to grant N.A. permission after considering the opinion already received from various authorities.

2.4 The petitioner states that vide order dated 28.08.2014, Collector again rejected the application on some new grounds. For the first time, reason was given for rejection that the land is new tenure land and even the development permission from Surat Municipal Corporation was not produced. Petitioner states that thereafter petitioner applied for development permission for commercial purpose from Surat Municipal Corporation and technical sanction for development permission came to be granted vide order dated 04.08.2015 for commercial use. It is pertinent to note that, as per the new policy adopted by the Surat Municipal Corporation, unless N.A. permission is produced, final development permission is not issued by the Corporation. Therefore, technical sanction is being granted.

2.5 The petitioner states that since a new reason/new point has been raised by the District Collector that the land is a new tenure land, though in fact, it is an old tenure land as his predecessors in title have purchased the land by registered sale deed and since 1966 the entries for registered sale deeds came to be mutated and no authority raised any objection qua the ten