ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By filing this petition, the petitioner-Trust has prayed to quash and set aside order passed by Collector on 16.9.2006, which is at Annexure-F.

2. Brief facts of the case are that by Revenue Entry No.246 posted in August 1947, the land bearing Survey No.1 of Village Champaner admeasuring 2 acres 25.5 Gunthas was allotted for the graveyard (Kabrastan) in the village Form No.6 after following procedure prescribed under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. It is further the case that entry No.246 was posted, which also reflects the order dated 3" March, 1947 passed by Collector for the allotment of such land to use the same for the purpose of Kabarstan. On 31st October, 1950 entry No.283 came to be recorded and said survey No.1 was bifurcated into land survey numbers namely 1/1/A and 1/1/B. 1/1/A was admeasuring acres 4096.18 Gunthas while survey No.1/1/B which was allotted to the Kabrastan was admeasuring 2 acres and 27 Guthas. Accordingly, in the Form No.7/12 also said land is shown as Kabrastan.

2.1 The petitioner trust was registered in the year 1996. After forming of the petitioner-Trust and on making an application to the revenue authorities, by entry No.689 dated 22.7.1997 the name of the trust was entered into village Form No.6. The name of the trust was shown against the property bearing survey No.1/1/B. Since 1997, the petitioner trust is taking care of all affairs of the property situated in survey No.1/1/B. Since 1997 the petitioner trust has seen so many dead bodies being buried in the land bearing survey No.1/1/B (Kabrastan). In 2004-2005 and very recently in August, 2008 dead bodies of Muslims staying in and around Champaner are brought to Champaner and have been buried in the Kabrastan. Some of the instances of burial can be seen from the certificates issued by Panchayat showing the burial. The petitioner trust is having possession of the land in question. Despite the above undisputed facts, the respondent passed an order on 16.9.2006 and snatched away the Kabrastan land. It is pertinent to note that entry No.783 dated 142.2007 was also posted in the revenue record.

3. Heard Mr.Hakim, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP for the respondent-State at length.

4. Mr.Hakim, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent authority, while passing the impugned order has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in them and thereby committed an illegality and/or irregularity and if the impugned order is allowed to stand, then the same will cause gross miscarriage of justice and, therefore, the order impugned in the present petition is liable to be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that the order impugned is misuse of power done by Collector by ignoring normal and regular procedure prescribed by law and the Collector has not even bothered to follow the constitutional mandate. He has submitted that the impugned order suffers from a clear breach of principles of natural justice and equity. The petitioner submits that the name of the trust was recorded in the revenue record in the year 1996. In this regard, he has relied upon annexure-D to the petition. He has also produced village form No.7-12 showing entries that the land in question is “kabrastan”. He further submitted that inspite of this fact the respondent did not bother to call upon and provide hearing to the trust before passing the impugned order.

4.1 He further submitted that even otherwise the perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the Collector had initiated the proceedings unilaterally and the same were concluded unilaterally. It clearly appears from the impugned order that the Collector did not thought it fit to verify the fact regarding use of the Kabrastan and only relied on the letter of the Mamlatdar.

4.2 He also submitted that the Collector had committed grave error in vesting the Kabrastan land in the Government. It is submitted that as pronounced by this Hon’ble Court as well as