IMPORTANT POINT
The grant of N.A. permission is based on the 'holding' and 'occupant' of the land, and the final outcome of a civil suit binds the parties involved.

ORDER :

1. Though the record is bulky, the controversy in question is not as complex as it has been projected.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.6.2022 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No.MVV/BKP/VDD/8/2021 whereby the petitioner's revision application was rejected and order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 - District Collector, Vadodara granting N.A. permission in favour of respondent No.4 was confirmed.

3. The brief facts, though are stated lengthy in the petition, which are relevant for the purpose of the present petition, are summarized as under :-

3.1 The petitioner is a Registered Association under the provisions of the Non-Trading Corporation Act, 1959 and the same was formed for the purpose of management and administration of the immovable properties owned by the members of the Association. A Scheme formed by the members of the petitioner Association known as Nilamber Bungalows No.1, which includes all the bungalows forming part of the said project which are 33 in number. The said project is developed on the land bearing Survey No.6/1, 6/2, 11/1 and 11/2 admeasuring about 15,885 Sq. Mts. Of village Vasanasaiyed, Taluka & District Vadodara. As per the petition, in respect of land in question, N.A. permission was granted in the year 1992 and thereafter, respondent No.4 who is holding Plot No.B/1 admeasuring 630 Sq. Mts. in the aforesaid Scheme applied for revised N.A. permission before the Collector, Vadodara which was granted vide order dated 27.12.2019.

3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid N.A. permission granted by the District Collector, Vadodara includes some of the land which is claimed to be the land of the Association and, therefore, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Suit No.136 of 2020 before the Civil Court at Vadodara with a prayer to restrain the respondent No.4 from putting up any construction. As the petitioner failed to get any relief from the Civil Court, in subsequent attempt, to stop respondent No.4 from putting up construction, in the year 2021, the petitioner challenged the order dated 27.12.2019 of the District Collector, Vadodara by preferring Revision Application No.MVV/BKP/VDD/8/2021 before the learned SSRD who rejected the revision application of the petitioner vide order dated 30.6.2022.

3.3 Hence the present petition challenging both the orders of the learned SSRD as well as District Collector, Vadodara.

4. It is pointed out by learned Senior Counsel Mr. D. C. Dave appearing with Mr. Jigar Raval for respondent No.4, upon instructions, that in the meantime, development plans submitted by respondent No.4 were approved and even the same was also challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.10831 of 2022. However, at the time of hearing of the petition on 15.9.2022, the said prayer was not pressed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the said petition was disposed of with a direction to the Vadodara Municipal Corporation to decide the representation of the petitioner. Even the said representation has also been rejected by the Corporation.

4.1. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dave further pointed out that the aforesaid efforts made by the petitioner would indicate that the petitioner has not left any stone unturned in ensuring that the respondent No.4 could not put up construction despite having N.A. permission as well as development plans in her favour.

5. In the above factual backdrop, the petition was heard.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Bhargav Hasurkar appearing for the petitioner has made the following submissions :-

6.1 At the time of granting revised N.A. permission, the authority did not consider the fact that the area for which N.A. permission was sought includes common land meant for other members of the Association as well. Therefore, the revised N.A. permission granted by the Collector, Vadodara was erroneous as the same is in respect of mor