Revenue authorities cannot cancel non-agricultural permission based on non-disclosure of pending litigation, as they lack jurisdiction to adjudicate title issues.

1.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Deep Kothari on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara on behalf of respondent- State.

2.By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 17.02.2023 issued by learned Special Secretary Revenue Department (SSRD) more particularly whereby the NA permission granted to the predecessor of the petitioner has been cancelled.

3.Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Kothari and having perused the documents on record, it would prima facie appear that the NA permission had been cancelled by the SSRD inter alia on the ground that the predecessor in title who had applied for NA permission, did not, in the NA application, mention the fact of a civil suit pending between the predecessor-in- title and the revision applicant before the learned SSRD. It would also appear that though the learned SSRD takes note of the fact that the said litigation had concluded against the revision applicant till this Court, yet, on the ground of the litigation not being mentioned, the learned SSRD has cancelled the NA permission.

4.To this Court it would appear that after decision of this Court in case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2019 (4) GLR 2578, the revenue authorities are not empowered to go into an issue with regard to the title of the property in question. It would also appear that this Court has in the above referred decision taken the view that the primary aspect which would require verification is whether the applicant of the NA permission is occupant of the land or not.

5.This Court has also inter alia observed that pendency of any litigation by itself would not entitle a third party to interject at the stage of NA permission or to challenge the NA permission itself. As a necessary corollary, to this Court it would appear that whether the pending litigations are mentioned in the NA form or not, would not have made any difference whatsoever to the NA application more particularly since the authorities were precluded from applying their mind as regard the dispute which was pending before the Civil Court. Under such circumstances, on account of the fact that litigation had not been mentioned in the NA application form, should not have resulted in the NA permission itself being set aside by the learned SSRD. The issue gets further aggravated if one considers the submission made by learned Advocate Mr. Kothari that after order of this Court rejecting the civil revision application preferred by the objector i.e. applicant before the learned SSRD, the said revision applicant had challenged the said order of this Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court where also the challenge did not meet with any success. Having regard to such prima facie observations, issue Notice for final disposal returnable on 21.08.2024. Learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent-State. Direct service for rest of the respondents is permitted.

6.Till the returnable date, status quo shall be maintained by all concerned.