Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nirzar S. Desai, J.
Patel Niralbhai Damodarbhai & Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 22557 of 2017
Decided On : 30-04-2024
NA Permission - Land Revenue Code - Section 65 - [Section 65 of Bombay Land Revenue Code] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, which governs the grant of NA permission. The court emphasized the importance of the validity of the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in 1961 and its subsequent review, highlighting the statutory limitation for reviewing such orders under Section 76(A) of the Tenancy Act. The court also noted the lack of initiation of any proceedings under Section 76(A) or any other appropriate proceedings under the provisions of Tenancy Act, which influenced its decision to quash the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the Collector for fresh consideration of the NA permission application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application for NA permission for agricultural to non-agricultural land conversion. The dispute arose from the deletion of the name of a protected tenant in the revenue record, leading to the rejection of the NA permission application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in 1961 and its subsequent review were crucial in determining the validity of the NA permission application. It noted the lack of initiation of any proceedings under Section 76(A) or any other appropriate proceedings under the provisions of Tenancy Act, which led to the quashing of the impugned orders and remanding the matter back to the Collector for fresh consideration of the NA permission application.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the validity of the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in 1961, the statutory limitation for reviewing such orders under Section 76(A) of the Tenancy Act, and the lack of initiation of any proceedings under Section 76(A) or any other appropriate proceedings under the provisions of Tenancy Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the statutory limitation for reviewing orders under Section 76(A) of the Tenancy Act and the lack of initiation of any proceedings under Section 76(A) or any other appropriate proceedings under the provisions of Tenancy Act, which ultimately led to the quashing of the impugned orders and remanding the matter back to the Collector for fresh consideration of the NA permission application.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, made the rule absolute, and quashed the impugned orders, remanding the matter back to the Collector for fresh consideration of the NA permission application.
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the learned Special Secretary [Dispute] (Revenue Department), Gujarat, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. Mavivi/Bakhap/Amad/45/2016 as well as the order passed by the learned Collector dated 29.08.2016 in proceedings No. Sibi/Jamin-2/N.A./Ambali/S.R. No.2233/2015/135714. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the Collector, Ahmedabad to grant NA permission immediately to the petitioner in accordance with provision of Section 65 of Bombay Land Revenue Code.
2. In this petition, notice was issue on 25.01.2018, and thereafter, vide order dated 04.04.2018, rule was issued and hence the matter was listed for final hearing.
3. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Anshin Desai for the petitioner assisted by learned advocate Ms. Renu Nanavati and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondents.
4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition as stated in the petition are as under:-
4.2 According to the petitioners, originally the sale deed in respect of land bearing block No.231 was in respect of area admeasuring as 0 acre 14 guntha but in re- survey the said land was shown as 0 acre 13 guntha as there was some deduction upon finalization of TP Scheme, and therefore, final plot No.73 admeasuring 921 sq. meters was allotted to the petitioners and since then they are in legal possession of the said final plot.
4.3 In the year 2015 on 20.10.2015, the petitioners preferred an application for conversion of land from agricultural to non agricultural purpose and all the concerned departments had given positive opinions including the Mamlatdar (Tenancy) and Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) and despite that the learned Collector, vide order dated 20.02.2016, rejected the petitioner’s application for NA permission on the ground that order regarding revenue entry No. 1265 is found to be improper.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioners preferred a Review Application before learned Collector on 05.05.2016 and ultimately, the Collector vide its order dated 29.08.2016, dismissed the Review Application preferred by the petitioner on the ground that name of tenant Jivabhai Lallubhai name is deleted vide entry No.1265 by the Mamlatdar and ALT, and as entry No.1265 was mutated on 12.09.1966. As per the Revenue Record the said tenant Jivabhai Lallubhai seems to have cultivated the land by “reet-4” from 1951-52 to 1957-57, “reet-3 from 1957-58 to 1970-71 and he was cultivating the land from 1971 to 1972 and 2002-04 to 2005 and his name was recorded as protected tenant as secondary right in the column of secondary right vide entry No.676 dated 16.03.1948, and therefore, in absence of there being any dispute between tenant Jivabhai Lallubhai and owner of the land Kankuben @ Madhukanta Shantabhai, the Mamlatdar and ALT has at relevant point of time has committed an error by deleting the name of Jivabhai Lallubhai as protected tenant, and therefore, in view of the aforesaid error committed, in the order dated 26.04.1961, the Revenue Entry No.1265 was mutated on 12.09.1966. The aforesaid order dated 26.04.1961 seems to be an erroneous order, and therefore, the same was required to be reviewed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeal), and therefore, the Review application preferred by the petitioner against the r
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the validity of the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in 1961 and its subsequent review, along with the statutory limita....
The conclusion of an administrative review requires the immediate consideration of pending applications for land conversion and NA permission from the original submission date, not as fresh applicati....
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision affirming tenant rights based on longstanding possession and admissions, indicating the strength of historical claims in tenancy disputes under the Tenancy Ac....
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
