DIPENBHAI RAMESHBHAI PATEL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant seeks review of judgement and order dated 21.8.2009 by which Letters Patent Appeal No.1562/2009 came to be dismissed confirming the view expressed by the Learned Single Judge in order dated 6.7.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No.2624/2009.

(2.) Briefly stated following facts emerge from record : 2.1 The applicant agricultural cooperative society ('the society' for short) was granted Government waste land of village Nana Gujaria, Taluka Bhensan, District Junagadh by order dated 16.4.1954 for its cultivation on new tenure basis on certain conditions. Out of the land initially allotted, due to certain reasons with which we are not concerned, society returned a portion of the land and total land alloted to the society remained 144 acres and 5 gunthas. 2.2 Though order of grant of land is not on record, from the order dated 28.9.2007 passed by the Collector Junagadh, it appears that in sanad issued by Assistant Collector of land, it was provided that same was subject to circulars, resolutions and Land Revenue Laws and Rules in force. As per condition no.1, the allotment was of new and indivisible tenure. As per condition no.2, the allotee was required to use the land for personal cultivation and if it was found that the land was not so utilised, the grant was liable to be cancelled. As per condition no.8, it was provided that in case of breach of any of the conditions, Government will reclaim the possession without paying any compensation. On these aspects there is no dispute between the parties. 2.3 Portion of the said land was required for Mota Gujariya Irrigation Project. Proposal for acquiring the required land i.e. approximately 44 acres of land was made on 7.4.1999. On 5.11.1999 acquiring body undertook measurements of the land at which point of time it was noticed that land was kept fallow since long. Subsequently notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 24.8.2000. On or around 18.12.2000, possession of the land was taken over by the acquiring body by private negotiations. Since it was found that land was kept fallow, proceedings in the year 2000 were initiated for cancellation of grant of land. 2.4 Assistant Collector however, by his order dated 18.1.2002 held that since the land is already acquired there is no question of breach of conditions. Proceedings were carried in appeal and remanded back to Assistant Collector. In his fresh order dated 8.4.2003 after remand, the Assistant Collector once again came to the same conclusion and also held that there was no breach of conditions. 2.5 Acquiring body challenged this order of Assistant Collector before the Collector who by his order dated 28.9.2007 held that there was clear breach of condition. That the society did not cultivate the land for years together. Some 5100 Babool trees had grown in the land indicating that land was not utilised by the society. Consequentially, the Collector cancelled the grant of land. 2.6 Society challenged the order of the Collector before the Government. The Revision Authority by order dated 21.10.2008 confirmed the order of the Collector. 2.7 Writ petition filed by the society challenging the orders passed by the Revenue Authority also came to be dismissed by judgement dated 6.7.2009. This judgement was challenged in Letters Patent Appeal which also came to be dismissed by an order dated 21.8.2009. It is this order which the applicant seeks review of.

(3.) Counsel for the applicant contended that after taking over the possession of the land and passing of the award, proceedings for breach of conditions could not be continued. He further contended that Section 79A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code under which such proceedings were initiated envisages possession of land with the grantee. Since in the present case, possession of the land was already taken over, powers under Section 79A could not be invoked. It was lastly contended that the acquiring body had no locus standi to challenge the order of the Assistant Collector who had from the material on record, come to a just conclusion that there was no breach of conditions.