B J GADHVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN present Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent the appellant-original petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 24.8.2009 rejecting present appellant's appeal.

(2.) THE factual background of present appeal is that:-

(3.) THE learned Single Judge has summarized the contentions of the appellant-petitioner raised during the hearing of the writ petition in para-5 of the judgment impugned by the appellant. THE facts which emerged from the record available at the relevant time before the learned Single Judge are narrated by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs No.2.1 to 2.10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and upon taking into account the material available on record and after appreciating the rival submissions of the contesting parties, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the exercise of grant of land to the appellant though divided in three different orders/stages [viz. orders dated 5.12.1981, 27.1.1982 and 11.5.1987], is one continuous and single exercise which concluded with the order dated 11.5.1987. THE learned Single Judge has also come to the conclusion that the appellant had applied for grant of land as an ex-serviceman and on such premise the application was considered and granted. From the record, learned Single Judge noticed that the appellant was granted Gauchar land and before reclaiming the Gauchar land, the guidelines and policy were not taken into account and followed. THE learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the entire exercise of initially granting about 8-Acres of land for 5 years at token rent of Re.1/- per year and then expanding the said grant by allotting further about 8-Acres of land and simultaneously expanding the period of grant from 5 years to 20 years and then converting the said grant/lease from lease of 20 years to permanent grant for merely Rs.825/- for almost more than 16-Acres of land amounts to fraud. THE learned Single Judge has also concluded that in view of the income of the appellant was much more than the prescribed limit and the preferential allotment in favour of the appellant-petitioner was not in accordance with the Government Resolutions/Policy and the guidelines and that therefore also, the entire exercise was illegal and unauthorized and has been rightly set aside by the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department. In view of such conclusions, the learned Single Judge rejected the contentions raised by the appellant-petitioner including, the ground of delay in initiating the impugned action.