ALKABEN HIRALAL DAVE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the appellant original petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 21.6.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4746 of 2011 whereby learned Single Judge refused to grant any relief to the appellant original petitioner and rejected the petition.

(2.) THE appellant original petitioner is the owner and occupier of land bearing Survey No.133 P -1/P -1 of village Rah, Taluka Tharad, District Banaskantha. It appears that the appellant wants the land to be converted to non -agricultural use and, therefore, applied for conversion with the revenue authorities. It appears that respondent No.4 has some objection as regards mutating the name of the appellant original petitioner in the revenue record pursuant to the transaction of sale through which the land in question was purchased by the appellant. Respondent No.4 appears to have taken objection before the Deputy Collector that as the dispute with regard to the mutation of entry is pending, no permission should be granted in favour of the appellant to convert and put the land to non -agricultural use. It appears that objection at the end of respondent No.4 was over -ruled vide order dated 5.2.2011 and, therefore, the appellant once again approached for necessary permission to convert the land to non -agricultural use. Once again, respondent No.4 objected in this regard before the District Development Officer. It also appears that due to such objections which have been raised, no decision is being taken by the authorities on the application preferred by the appellant to convert the land for non -agricultural use.

(3.) IN this factual background, the appellant preferred Special Civil Application No.4746 of 2011 and prayed for writ of mandamus directing authorities to grant non -agricultural permission to the appellant with respect to the land in question. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that respondent Nos.4 to 6 have raised serious dispute with regard to the boundaries of the land in question and if any direction is issued to the authorities to pass necessary orders on the application of the appellant, then it may cause serious prejudice to respondent Nos.4 to 6. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that taking into consideration the objections raised by respondent Nos.4 to 6 before the authorities if the concerned authority has ordered to file the application refusing to pass any order of non -agricultural permission, then in that case, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Taluka Development Officer, Tharad. Learned Single Judge, therefore, refused to quash and set aside order dated 1.4.2011 passed by the Taluka Development Officer which reads as under.