PENTICOSTAL MISSION Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who claims to be providing social services to the different members of the society, has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 1st January, 2000 passed by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) Gujarat State, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. SRD-7-98 which was preferred by respondents No.5 and 6 herein who owned the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 454, 455 (Block No. 432 Part) situated in the sim of village Pal, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat ad-measuring 14,266.00 square meters out of which 629square yards (525.92 square meters) of land came to be sold to the petitioner after obtaining permission under section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948,["the Act" for short].

(2.) AS per the case of the petitioner, the Deputy Collector had granted permission under sec. 63 of the Act on 17.4.96 and extended the said permission on 26.9.1996. Copy of the order dated 17.4.1996 passed by the Deputy Collector under section 63 of the Act is found at Annexure A, page 19 of the petition. As averred in the petition, the petitioner had also applied for permission under section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ("the ULC Act" for short) and the competent authority granted the said permission and thereafter, respondent no.5 executed registered sale deed dated 25.9.1996. It is the further case of the petitioner that the permission of Surat Urban Development Authority ["SUDA" for short] was sought for the construction on the land by the petitioner and the said authority sanctioned the plan for construction on 26.9.1997. However, since the land was agricultural land, the petitioner then felt it necessary to apply for permission for non agriculture use on 7.1.1998. However, before that, the petitioner had started the construction and, therefore, the District Development Officer being the competent officer passed order for imposing penalty of Rs.3660.0 under sec. 101 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and construction of the petitioner was ordered to be regularized. Said order is dated 19.7.1998 which is found at Annexure-C to the petition.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Mr.R.N.Shah for the petitioner has submitted that the revision application before the Additional Secretary at the instance of the land owners who had already sold away and pocketed the money was not maintainable. He also argued that the land was sold to the petitioner after obtaining necessary permission under sec. 63 of the Act and, therefore, there was no illegality in the transaction of sale in favour of the petitioner. He would further submit that since the petitioner had already got the plan sanctioned from the competent authority under the SUDA, the petitioner had started construction on bona fide belief that it was authorized to start the construction, though the application for NA Permission was pending. He also submitted that before starting construction also, there was already permission under sec. 26 of the ULC Act for the land in question. However, the only fault committed was to start construction without waiting for NA Permission. Such permission was granted and the petitioner also suffered the penalty of Rs.3660.00 for the regularization of construction put up by the petitioner before getting the NA Permission. He, thus, submitted that it was mere irregularity on the part of the petitioner which was condoned and regularized by the competent authority and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has put up construction without obtaining necessary non agricultural permission and it also cannot be said that there was breach of the condition of permission under section 63 of the Act because the such permission was already granted and under such permission, the petitioner had purchased the land in question and permission for NA Use was required but such lapse of extension of time in permission under sec. 63 of the Act would not make the permission under sec. 63 of the Act itself as invalid and consequently permission for NA Use also would not become invalid. He ultimately urged that the revision application which was filed by the original owner was an act of vengeance and the land owners had no locus to file such revision application. He ultimately urged to set aside the impugned order and to allow the petition.