A communication from a quasi-judicial authority lacking formal order and reasoning cannot validate demands made upon a party; such actions are beyond jurisdiction under tenancy laws.

ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. Ms. Trusha Patel, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.K. Puj, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant does not propose to file any rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.5.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of the present Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant – original petitioner seeks for quashing and setting aside of the communication dated 29.10.2024 issued by the Collector asking the petitioner to pay premium with respect to the land in question.

3. At the outset, we may record that the communication dated 29.10.2024 is bereft of reasoning and only refers to a communication dated 17.07.2020 of the Additional Collector (Vigilance), Gandhinagar asking the Collector to levy premium over the land in question.

4. We have noted in the detailed order dated 28.04.2025 that the communication dated 17.07.2020 at Page-55 of the paper-book indicates that it was addressed by the Additional Collector (Vigilance), Revenue Department with reference to the communication dated 21.12.2018 of the Collector, Gandhinagar, wherein some directions were issued to levy premium with respect to the land in question, which is revenue survey no.117. It was further noted that the communication dated 21.12.2018, reference of which is found in the letter dated 17.07.2020 written by the Additional Collector (Vigilance), Revenue Department addressed to the Collector, was another internal communication between the Officers.

5. Be that as it may, a show-cause notice dated 09.09.2021 has been issued to the petitioner, which simply records that the petitioner was required to appear in the office of the Collector, Gandhinagar on 20.09.2021 for making an inquiry with respect to the land in question, which has been initiated on the complaint of a third party.

6. Under the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2025, an affidavit-in-reply, dated 06.06.2025 has been filed on behalf of the District Collector, Gandhinagar. The chronological details with respect to the land in question in survey/ block no.117, admeasuring 7789 square meters of Village Chiloda, Taluka & District Gandhinagar, are stated in paragraph-6 [6.1 to 6.18] of the affidavit. It is stated in the aforesaid paragraphs that the permission for non-agricultural use of the land in question was granted in favour of the appellant on 16.07.2012 by considering the land in question as old tenure land and as such, only conversion charges were levied. However, on a complaint filed by a third person dated 20.11.2013 and 11.06.2014, wherein the issue with respect to the status of the appellant was raised, an inquiry was made with regard to the sale transaction. It is stated in paragraph- 6.4 of the affidavit-in-reply that for another survey no.90, also owned by the appellant herein, an inquiry was initiated suo moto about the status of the appellant, in the revision against the order dated 01.05.1989 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, wherein the