SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Ganesh Sagar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to collector's order regarding land tenure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on the legality of the collector's revision authority. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. analysis of the role of collected evidence in tenure determination. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. importance of factual basis for tenure classification. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. ruled invalidating collector's order for unreasonably delayed action. (Para 32) |
JUDGMENT :
The subject matter of challenge in the captioned writ petition, is the order dated 18.10.2007 passed by the Collector – respondent no.2. Challenge is also to the order dated 16.06.2006 passed by the District Development Officer i.e. respondent no.3 (on the basis of the Resolution no.113 dated 15.04.2006). Vide above-referred order dated 18.10.2007, the Collector, has quashed and set aside order dated 31.12.1993 and order dated 15.02.1994 passed by the Mamlatdar, Daskroi and Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant respectively. Consequential entry no.5664 and entry no.5665, both dated 18.02.1994 respectively, were also directed to be quashed and set aside. Further, the Collector ordered that in the village form no.7/12, the land be shown as new tenure land. The Mamlatda
Bhanji D. Luhar vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1676
Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodariya vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2013 (2) GLR 1788.
Jt. Collector Ranga Reddy Dist. & Another vs. D. Narsing Rao & Others reported in 2015 (3) SCC 695
Employees State Insurance Corporation v. C.C. Santhakumar reported in 2007(1) SCC 584
State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (1969 (2) SCC 187)
Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar (1987 (4) SCC 497)
Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. (1989 (1) SCC 532)
Collector and Others v. P.Mangamma and Others (2003 (4) SCC 488)
Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal (2002 (1) SCC 134)
Joseph Severance v. Benny Mathew (2005(7) SCC 667)
Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim
State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha (1969) 2 SCC 187)
Ram Chand v. Union of India (1994) 1 SCC 44)
State of Punjab and Others v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd.
Suo motu revisional powers must be exercised within a reasonable period; delays result in the action being considered arbitrary and may infringe on established rights.
The Deputy Collector's notice issued beyond the one-year limit for calling records under the Tenancy Act was void, emphasizing the necessity of application of mind in such proceedings.
Section 27 relates to prohibition of transfer of any Urban land with a building thereon. Apart from legal position that Sec. 27 has been struck down as ultra vires, it is quite obvious that no such q....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.