IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the breach of condition in the conversion of land and the authority's power to initiate proceedings for breach of condition under the Bombay Land Revenue Code were crucial in determining the legality of the orders.

JUDGMENT :

1. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. Hence, RULE. Learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents – State. Direct service is not filed for the respondent no. 6. However, respondent no.6 being a Cooperative Society who has already sold the land to the petitioner, prima facie this Court is of the view that the respondent no. 6 – Society’s absence in this petition would not affect the merits of the matter as the petition is preferred by the petitioner challenging the orders passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department as well as the Collector whereby the proceedings for breach of condition are directed to be initiated and Entry No. 1269 dated 16.01.2008 is cancelled.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. J. C. Vyas appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara appearing for the respondent – State.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.01.2016/23.02.2016 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/AMD/174/2013 whereby the Revision Application was rejected and the order passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad dated 26.08.2013 in Application No. LB/RA No.62/2011 was confirmed.

4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are stated as under:-

4.1. The land bearing Survey No. 48 situated at Village: Melasana,Taluka: Sanand, District: Ahmedabad admeasuring 27013 sq. mtrs. was granted to the respondent no. 6 i.e. Jay Shri Mevadi Samudayik Kheti Sahkari Mandali Ltd. as new tenure land vide order dated 16.04.1986. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid land was granted by the Government to the members of the aforesaid Mandali for earning their livelihood. Though the aforesaid fact is not stated in the petition by making the averments from the orders which are annexed with the petition, the fact about the purpose behind the grant of land can be gathered.

4.2. According to the petitioner, vide order dated 17.03.2007 passed by the Mamlatdar, Sanand, the land was converted into old tenure land only for agricultural purpose and other conditions stipulated in the order.

4.3. As per the condition no. 4, the land was to be utilized only for agricultural purpose and the purpose of the land cannot be changed without prior permission of the Competent Authority but what is most important is condition no. 8 which provides that unless the order is reviewed by the Deputy Collector, the land cannot be transferred to any other person.

4.4. In the instant case, immediately after the land was converted into old tenure land only for agricultural purpose vide order dated 17.03.2007, the land was sold to the petitioner by respondent no. 6 – Mandali vide registered sale deed dated 23.03.2007 for which a Revenue Entry No. 1269 was mutated in the revenue record on 16.01.2008 and the same was certified on 13.03.2008.

4.5. According to the petitioner, thereafter, due to some misunderstanding among the office bearers of the Respondent No.6, an appeal was preferred by the respondent no. 6 on 11.04.2008 under Rule 108 (5) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the notice was not served upon the petitioner at his proper address and despite that the respondent no. 3 proceeded with the appeal and the order was passed on 02.09.2008 in RTS Appeal No. 89 of 2008 and the Mutation Entry No. 1269 was cancelled and the land was directed to be vested into Government without there being any charge over the land in question. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 02.09.2008 by way of Revision Application No. LB/Revision Application No. 254 of 2008 and the Collector vide his order dated 13.07.2009 rejected the petitioner’s application and confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 02.09.2008.

4.6. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad by way of Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/AMD/96/2009. In t