Point of Law: Authority is required to exercise the power under Section 211 of Code within few months from date of passing of order under Section 65 of Code by competent authority and such exercise is to be completed within time framed.

JUDGMENT :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. By way of this petition, which his filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.02.2009 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals).

2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Tatvam Patel for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Hardik S. Soni for the respondents.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the dispute in the present petition is with regard to the land bearing Survey No. 267 pk. admeasuring 9105 Sq. Mtrs. situated in Village: Orvad, Taluka: Pardi, District: Valsad. The disputed land was originally owned and occupied by one Rohitkumar Babubhai Desai. The petitioner purchased the said land from the concerned land owner on 06.04.1999 by registered sale deed and, thereafter, the name of the petitioner came to be mutated in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale deed. As the petitioner wanted to use the said land for bona-fide industrial purpose, he applied to the concerned panchayat for grant of no objection for granting permission under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Code” for short). It is submitted that the concerned Gram Panchayat passed Resolution on 28.12.2001, whereby the Panchayat has resolved to grant no objection for the grant of NA permission to the petitioner. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that as the petitioner wanted to set up factory for the production of Aluminum Collapsible Tubes, he applied for the development permission to be granted by the concerned panchayat. The petitioner got required forms filled up by the registered structural designer, who was holding valid licence. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application on 13.06.2002 for obtaining NA permission under Section 65 of the Code for the land in question. The said application was submitted to the Taluka Development Officer, who was the competent authority to grant such permission. It is submitted that the petitioner supplied all the required details and the documents along with the said application and after making necessary inquiry as contemplated under Section 65 of the Code, the concerned competent authority granted permission under Section 65 of the Code in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, started construction work in the land in question and installed machinery. It is submitted that the construction was carried out as per the sanctioned plans.

4. At this stage, learned advocate further submitted that thereafter, the respondent no. 1 issued show-cause notice dated 30.07.2003 while exercising suo motu powers under Section 211 of the Code. In the said show-cause notice, it has been alleged that the petitioner has not obtained opinion of the Executive Engineer, R&B Department, Valsad. The petitioner has also not obtained NOC from the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (“GPCB” for short”) as the petitioner obtained permission for running factory. It is also alleged that the petitioner did not submit Form Nos. 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d) as per the order of the concerned department of the Government and lastly, it was alleged that the petitioner has not prepared the plan from the registered architect. The petitioner was therefore asked to show-cause why NA permission granted by the competent authority should not be cancelled. It was also observed in the said show-cause notice that till final decision is taken by the respondent no. 1, the petitioner shall not carry out any further construction in the land in question.

5. Learned advocate submits that the petitioner immediately gave reply on 08.08.2003 and pointed out correct facts. It is submitted in the reply that the Gram Panchayat has already granted NOC as NOC was required to be obtained from the Gram Panchayat as it is an internal village road. It is further stated in the reply that the application is already submitted to the GPCB, Vapi along with required fees and the site in