HASMUKHLAL H SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.P. V. Hathi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr.Pandya, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities. Though notice of rule has been served to the respondent no.2, no one appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2.

(2.) In the present petition, rule has been issued by this court on 1st May, 1989 and ad-interim relief has been granted by this court.

(3.) The brief facts of the giving rise to this petition are as under :- The petitioner is a resident of village Pedhada, Ta.Lakhatar, Dist.Surendranagar and his fore-fathers were doing agricultural work. At the time when the Saurashtra State was formed, the petitioner and his fore-fathers were doing actual agricultural work. However, with a view to avoid any complication in future, the petitioner made an application to the Competent Officer viz. the Assistant Collector, Dhrangadhra to grant permission to purchase agricultural land. The said application was supported by the necessary evidence and after holding necessary enquiries, the Assistant Collector, Dhrangadhra, by his order dated 26th December, 1983 granted permission to the petitioner to purchase the above stated agricultural land. It was specifically mentioned in the said order/certificate of the Assistant Collector that the petitioner had led necessary evidence to show that his father was an occupant/agriculturist and that, though it was not necessary, the permission/certificate was granted to the petitioner under section 18(1) of the Ordinance. The said certificate has been produced by the petitioner at Annexure-A to this petition. According to the petitioner, the said certificate at Annexure-A was not illegal or improper. Eventhough, sufficient time has been lapsed passed the Collector, Surendranagar issued a show cause notice dated 17th September, 1984 on the assumption he exercised revisional powers under section 211 of Land Revenue Code and ignoring the material facts that the Assistant Collector who has passed an order at Annexure-A to this petition has also exercised the power of the Collector and called upon the petition as to why the said order should not be set aside. The petitioner filed a detail reply on 5th February, 1985 and pointed out interalia to him that his fore-father is agriculturist and that he had proved the said fact before the Assistant Collector. That he was not required to seek any prior permission but had made an application out of abundant caution and he has invested large amount for execution of theregistered document and for improving upon the land, that as no appeal preferred within the prescribed period of limitation ,in such situation, the revisional powers should not be exercised after lapse of 90 days. That there was no illegality or impropriety for the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Dhrangadhra at Annexure-A to this petition. There was no question of exercising revisional power. Accordingly, the notice was required to be cancelled. The Collector, Surendranagar, after hearing the petitioner by his order dated 29th March, 1985, set aside the order certificate dated 26th December, 1983 at Annexure-A on the ground that the petitioner had ceased to be an agriculturist, that there was no evidence to show that his income was less than Rs,5,000/- and accordingly, the order which was illegal and improper was required to be set aside since the order was illegal and no question of limitation would arise for setting aside such order. The Collector has also setting aside such order. The District Collector has also proceedings under section 75 of the Ordinance even though the said provision was also repealed as submitted by the petitioner. Again the said order was passed by the District Collector, the petitioner preferred Revision Application to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal . The said Revision Application was converted into Appeal No.54 of 1985 by the Tribunal and was heard by the learned member, who by his judgment and order dated 31st January, 1989, dismissed the same according to the order of the Collector. Therefore, the present petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Collector, Surendranagar and also the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.