The necessity of reasoned orders and the illegality of arbitrary orders vesting the land in the State Government under Section 79A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.

ORDER :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent - State.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the respondent No.2 – Assistant Collector, Tharad as well as the order dated 21.07.2016 passed by the respondent No.4 – District Collector, Palanpur, District Banaskantha.

4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Bachani, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 10.10.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.13853 of 2017 and allied matters. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Bachani, that the petitioner is one of the 42 families being refugees, who had settled at Kachchh and who had approached this Court by filing various writ petitions.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Bachani, has further submitted that in fact, when the petitioner has approached to give benefit of the judgment, he was informed that he has to seek similar order from the High Court, wherein and whereby the similar orders have been set aside by the High Court, however in his case the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities still subsist and hence, he has filed the writ petition.

4.2 It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Bachani, on instructions, that so far as the land of Kachchh is concerned, the same is already vested in the State Government and the land in question i.e. the land at Taluka Tharad, District Banaskantha, the petitioner is still holding the same.

5. Brief facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner’s family migrated to Village Tharad District Banaskantha after partition between India and Pakistan and the State Government had allotted the land situated at revenue Survey No.23/1B/27, admeasuring hectare 4-04 acre -69 gunthas for rehabilitation purpose for cultivation vide order dated 28.04.1988. It is asserted that since last 28 years and as on today the petitioner is cultivating the land. Thereafter, it appears that an entry to that effect being Entry No.1630 is recorded at Adesar Gram Panchayat, Taluka Rapar, District Kachchh, pursuant to the application filed by the husband of the petitioner.

5.1 It appears that thereafter, the Additional Collector, Tharad by the order dated 25.06.2012 directed the land to be vested in the State Government under the provisions of Section 79A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. The petitioner filed Appeal No.27 of 2014 against the aforesaid order before the District Collector, Banaskantha, who, after verifying the record vide order dated 20.05.2014 remanded the matter again to the Additional Collector. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Deputy Collector, Tharad, the land was forfeited and again vested in the State Government.

5.2 Being aggrieved by the above order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Deputy Collector, Tharad, the petitioner preferred Appeal No.112 of 2015 before the respondent No.4 – District Collector, Banaskantha and the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 21.07.2016.

5.3 It appears that there were various orders passed against such families, who approached this Court by filing various writ petitions, however the petitioner did challenge the same, by filing a writ petition at the relevant point of time. After the aforesaid judgment was passed in favour of other families, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Bachani has submitted that similar treatment, which has been given to other families, is required to be extended to the petitioner. It is submitted that the benefit of the aforesaid judgment may also be granted to the petitioner and the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside.

7. Per contra, learned Assistant