TRILOKCHAND SOMNATH SHAH Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner above named, being an Ex-service man of Village Mandal, Tal. Viramgam, District Ahmedabad, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the respondent above named, for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Disputes), Gujarat, Ahmedabad dated 7.9.1971 and for restoring the order of the Dy.Secretary dated 17.10.1989.

(2.) The facts of the present case may be briefly stated as follows. The petitioner above named is an Ex-service man, who joined the Military service on 9.3.1956 as Sepoy Grade C-3P. That on account of the fact that he suffered from Tuberculosis, he was required to retire from service on 23.6.1964. He was granted pension of Rs.25.00 per month. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondents for allotment of land for his livelihood in accordance with the scheme of the respondents for allotment of land to Ex-service man. The petitioner claims that the Prant Officer, Viramgam considered the said application of the petitioner and by order dated 15.4.1981, allotted to the petitioner a piece of 16 acres of land bearing Block No.932. The petitioner paid the value thereof on 6.5.1981 and the necessary mutation entries were posted at sr.no.9426 on 3.6.1981. The petitioner was, therefore,shown as occupant in respect of the said land admeasuring at 16 acres on the strength of the said orders and mutation entries. The petitioner claims that thereafter, the said land was prepared for cultivation between 1981 and 1986. That the petitioner spent more than Rs.21,000.00 for converting the said land for agricultural use. That thereafter the Collector, Ahmedabad issued notice dated 12.8.1988 being No.2 of 1988 to the petitioner to show cause as to why the aforesaid order dated 15.4.1981 should not be reviewed. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice and submitted necessary documentary evidence along with the said reply. That the Collector, on hearing the petitioner, passed an order dated 1.11.1988 setting aside the earlier decision of the Prant Officer after a span of seven years. That thereafter, the petitioner preferred Revision Application under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code before the Principal Secretary (Disputes), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, Ahmedabad. That the concerned Dy.Secretary, department of Revenue (Disputes) heard the matter on 17.10.1989. That by the said order, the aforesaid order of the Collector dated 15.4.1981 was quashed and set aside and the order of the Dy.Collector was maintained . That the said matter was carried in Revision suo motu, and in the said suo motu Revision, the previous order was quashed and set aside and the order of the Collector referred to above was restored. Therefore, the last position is that the land was held to be wrongly allotted to the petitioner and consequently there is a direction that the land in question be resumed and possession thereof should be taken over from the petitioner.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court. It has been mainly contended here that once the Government had finally disposed of the Revision Application of the petitioner, the said Government should not have taken the matter in suo motu revision. It is further contended that the proceedings could not be reopened suo motu while in exercising revisional powers under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (for short 'the Code') after a lapse of 8 years. That in the above view of the matter, the orders of the respondent for resumption of the land are illegal and, therefore, they are required to be quashed and set aside.