Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ANIRUDDHA P.MAYEE
Nitinbhai Mavjibhai Sinojiya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners impugn the order dated 05.04.2016 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad as well as the order dated 30.05.2014 passed by the Dy. Collector, Dhoraji rejecting the application for grant of Non-Agricultural [“NA” for short] permission by the petitioners.
2. The factual matrix in the present case is that, the petitioners have purchased Survey No.1332/paiki 1/paiki 1 at Village Bhayavadar, Taluka Upleta, District Rajkot through registered sale deed No.538 and mutation entry No.19582 also came to be recorded in favour of the petitioners in the revenue records based on the sale deed. Thereafter, mutation entry No.19809 came to be entered and certified reflecting partition and separate ownership of the land admeasuring 1-19-96 sq. mts. in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter applied for NA permission for residential use to the Dy. Collector, Dhoraji on 01.02.2014. By communication dated 28.04.2016, the said application came to be rejected by the Dy. Collector, Dhoraji on the ground that the opinion of the Mamlatdar, Upleta has not been received in respect of th
Authority under Gujarat Land Revenue Code cannot assess land title when considering applications for Non-Agricultural permission; the focus must remain on occupancy rights.
Point of law: When one examines the aspect of appeal preferred by the contesting respondents, one would find it difficult to accept as to how the right to appeal is said to have been conferred upon a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Collector's decision to reject the N.A permission application based solely on a pending Special Civil Application was not justified, and r....
Though the Collector is vested with the power to grant permission for use of agricultural land for non-agricultural use, it could not have been a time bound permission.
Party lacking interest in property cannot contest permissions granted for the property after selling it.
Point of Law- Under these circumstances, the matter is required to be remanded back to the concerned authority to consider the application of the petitioner for N.A.Permission afresh and decide it in....
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....
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
