VISHAL NARENDRABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.05.2006 passed by the Secretary (Disputes), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad.

(2.) Brief facts of the petitioners' case is that, the application was made by the father of the petitioners and thereafter by the petitioners to the Deputy Collector (NA) to regularize the construction made on the land admeasuring 3509 sq. mtrs. of survey Nos.114/1 and 114/2 which was forming part of the old survey No.114 in accordance with the order No.MVV/BKHP/AMD/3/2006 dated 30.05.2006 passed by the Secretary (Disputes) Revenue Department, Ahmedabad. It is to be noted that the Secretary has passed the above referred order for another parcel of land for other party. Thereafter, the Deputy Collector (NA) , Ahmedabad has passed an order No.NA/U-2/Isanpur/s.66-67/Case No.51/2019 levying penalty of Rs . 17,34,850/-from the year 1975-76 to 2018-19 with further order that in case of any unauthorized construction, the plan of the same is not to be approved from AMC within 3 months or the land having unauthorized construction is to be removed. As per the order dated 21.2.2019 of the respondent - Deputy collector (NA) , the petitioners have deposited the amount of Rs. 17, 34, 850/-. It the case of the petitioners that the Deputy collector (NA) has handed over to the petitioners an undated letter intimating that the application for regularization of construction on the land bearing the above mentioned survey number is put to end for the reason that the plan approved by the AMC was not furnished. Then the petitioners made an application to review the decision of the Deputy Collector (NA) to close the case inter alia informing that the construction plan permission and plan approved by Isanpur Gram Panchayat are submitted on the records of the file and therefore, a fresh permission or approval from AMC is required. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 has asked the opinion of the Commissioner of AMC seeking opinion in the matter of tenancy and construction and on this pretext, the Deputy Collector has not decided the case of the petitioners.

(3.) It is vehemently submitted by Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that when the Gram Panchayat has already given the permission to the petitioners, the opinion of the AMC is not required. He has also relied on the order of the SSRD, wherein the SSRD has relied upon the permission given by the Gram Panchayat and in that particular case, the Deputy Collector has regularized the construction. It is further submitted that while granting permission for non-agricultural land, the permission of the construction is not required to be considered by the Deputy Collector and he has to decide only question as to whether this land can be used for non-agricultural purpose or not.