HASANBHAI MUSABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.A.J.Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.S.P.Sen, learned AGP for the respondents - State. This petition has been admitted by this Court on 15th June, 2001 and Rule was made returnable on 17th July, 2001.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :-

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.A.J.Patel, for the petitioners has submitted that the higher authority i.e. the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department by his order dated 9th / 10th September, 1999 directed the Collector, Baroda to grant N.A. permission within 21 days and even on subsequent occasion again directed to comply the earlier direction within 10 days vide his order dated 29th October, 1999. Not only that the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department has also sought an explanation of the Collector, Baroda for delay in grant of N.A. permission to the petitioners on his part for not granting N.A. permission in respect of the land in question. Thus, despite the case of the petitioners was found to be genuine by the higher authorities of the Collector, Baroda and though the higher authority directed the Collector, Baroda but on the contrary, the Collector, Baroda time and again asked for more and more details from the petitioners and such details which are absolutely not relevant for granting N.A. permission in favour of the petitioners. It is also submitted that the intention of the respondent - Collector, Baroda for taking into consideration the objections filed by the alleged erstwhile owners, seems to be not just and proper and under the guise and pretext of the objections of the alleged erstwhile owner, the Collector, Baroda is sitting tight over the matter which is not at all relevant to the issue pending before the Collector, Baroda. Therefore, the submission of Mr.A.J.Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner is that some suitable directions may be issued to the respondent - Collector, Baroda to grant N.A. permission immediately without any delay. However, he also submitted that even in a case, if the Collector, Baroda wants any further details from the petitioners in respect of the grant of N.A. permission, the petitioners are ready and willing to furnish the same immediately. In short, the submission of Mr.A.J.Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner is that when the order of refusing the N.A. permission dated 21st June, 1999 passed by the Collector, Baroda, has been reversed by the higher revisional authority even before two years back, now the Collector, Baroda must take the decision in the matter which is pending before him since considerable long time. Therefore, the request of Mr.A.J. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners, on behalf of the petitioners is that some suitable direction may be issued the Collector, Baroda - respondent No.2 herein to decide the application directing the respondent No.2 to grant N.A. permission to the petitioners within some stipulated time limit.