NATVARLAL KARSANJI GOHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : The present petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No.SRD/ VLS/ cTS/ 32/ 89 dated 9.3.90/ 1.6.90, whereby the Secretary (Appeals) allowed the Revision Application and quashed the order of the Collector dated 10.5.1989 and also quashed the order of the City Survey Inquiry Officer and declared the land in question to be that of the Govt. land.

(2.) It is given out that the petitioner who is the resident of Khergam, Taluka Chikli, District Valsad has purchased the land belonging to one Dahyabhai Makanji for a sum of Rs.1500.00 by a registered sale deed dated 3.3.1966. It is the case of the petitioner that the City Survey Inquiry Officer, who conducted the inquiry showed that the petitioner is the owner of only 8.56 sq. meters and amalgamated 32.31 sq. meters of land in favour of respondent no.2 herein. Being aggrieved of that the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector. Said appeal came to be allowed by the Assistant Collector, Navsari by his judgement and order dated 31.5.1988 and directed a fresh inquiry to be conducted by the City Survey Officer. Being aggrieved of the said judgement and order in appeal, respondent no.2 preferred a revision application before the Collector which came to be rejected by the Collector, Valsad by his order dated 10.5.1989, who confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector. Being aggrieved of the said order of the Collector, respondent no.2 preferred revision application before the Secretary (Appeals). Said revision application came to be allowed by the Secretary (Appeals) as mentioned hereinabove. Being aggrieved of that the present petition is filed.

(3.) It is vehemently submitted by Mr.Shelat, learned counsel that the Secretary (Appeals) could not have decided to the effect that the land belongs to the Govt. when there was no case of either party to that effect. It was also submitted by Mr.Shelat on behalf of the petitioner that the proceedings started from an order of the City Survey Inquiry Officer, who held a portion of the land to be that of the ownership of respondent no.2 and in those proceedings, when it was not the case of any of the parties that the land belongs to the Govt., there was no question for the Secretary (Appeals) to hold to that effect. He submitted that the order of the Secretary (Appeals) suffers from non application of mind and also the same is dehors the record produced before him and the same is required to be quashed and set aside.