MINABEN ARVINDLAL GANDHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these group of petitions, the petitioners challenge the order of Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Govt. of Gujarat, dated 25/07/1984, whereby the Secretary cancelled the order of Taluka Development Officer, Mangrol, dated 4/11/1982 granting permission to the owners/occupiers of Block Nos. 75 and 88 situated at village Mota Borsara, Taluka Mangrol for making non-agricultural use of the said land. The said order was passed by the Taluka Development Officer in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Sec. 65 of Bombay Land Revenue Code, hereinafter referred to as the 'said Code', read with Sees. 123 & 157 of Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'.

(2.) The facts leading to the group of these petitions, briefly stated, are as under : (i) The respondents Nos. 3 to 7 in each of these petitions, through Power of Attorney, applied to the Taluka Development Officer, Mangrol, under Sec. 65 of the Code seeking permission for non-agricultural use of parcels of lands bearing Block Nos. 75 and 88 of village Mota Borsara. The Taluka Development Officer, Mangrol, by his order, dated 4/11/1982 granted permission for non-agricultural use on terms and conditions stated in the said order and he also required respondents Nos. 3 to 7 to pay the premium amount of Rs. 33,426.92 Ps. for block No. 75 and Rs. 30,578.40 Ps. for block No. 88. The amount of premium was paid on 4/11/1982 by challan in the treasury. (ii) Thereafter, the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 herein through Power of Attorney-holder sold the said block Nos. 75 and 88 by sub-plotting the same to the petitioners by registered sale deed dated 30/05/1983 and the petitioners were put in possession and occupation of the said blocks. (iii) Thereafter, the Secretary (Appeals) issued notice, dated 7/05/1984 on his coming to know about the order passed by the T.D.O. thereby purporting to act under Sec. 211 of the Code. By the said notice he called upon the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 to show cause as to why permission for non-agricultural use granted by the T.D.O. should not be cancelled for following reasons : (a) As per Government Resolution, dated 20/05/1980 when permission for non-agricultural use is to be granted with respect to new tenure land or land of restricted tenure under Sec. 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 or Sec. 32P(8) of the said Act, the premium amount which was hitherto being fixed by the T.D.O. was now not to be fixed by the T.D.O. because of the subsequent change in the resolution of the Government, dated, 20/05/1980 by virtue of Resolution dated 16/10/1982. The premium now is to be fixed by the Revenue Officer. (b) As per Resolution of Govt. dated 25/03/1981 when permission for non-agricultural use is to be granted it was necessary to obtain opinion of Industries Officer and T.D.O. has failed to obtain such opinion. (c) The permission for non-agricultural use is granted so as to enable the applicants to establish industry but the nature of industry is not stated by the T.D.O., and therefore, also the order is bad. (d) Since the T.D.O. granted permission for industrial use he ought to have obtained the opinion of Gujarat Water Pollution Control Board, Gandhinagar, and since he has not obtained such opinion, the order was bad. (e) The T.D.O. also ought to have enquired as to whether any proceedings for acquisition of land in question were pending. (f) The T.D.O. also ought to have enquired as to whether by granting such permission breach of any provisions of Urban Development Regulation was committed. (iv) On receipt of such notice the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 submitted their replies, dated 23-5-1984, inter alia, submitting that they have already paid the amount of premium fixed by the T.D.O. and that after obtaining permission they have sub-plotted the land and have sold the said parcels of land by registered sale deeds to the present petitioners. They, therefore, submitted that notices should be issued to the purchasers and that there was no need to cancel the permission for non-agricultural use. (v) It may be noted that despite specific contention that after grant of permission for non-agricultural use the two parcels of lands are sub-plotted and such plots arc sold to the petitioners by registered sale deeds, Secretary (Appeals) did not think it fit to issue notices to the present petitioners and based on the replies filed by the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 he proceeded to pass the impugned order, dated 25/07/1984 cancelling the permission for non-agricultural use granted by the T.D.O.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order of the first respondent, the petitioners have approached this Court.