LAWS(GJH)-2012-12-196

PRIYAVADAN CHUNILAL BHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On December 28, 2012
Priyavadan Chunilal Bhatt Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Ms.Nisha M.Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1 to 4. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the interest of respondent No.5, through his heirs, is the same as that of the petitioner. In the circumstances, there is no requirement of issuing separate notice of Rule to the heirs of respondent No.5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided.

(2.) THE petitioner has preferred this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by order of the Deputy Collector, Anand, dated 29/06/2000, whereby the land in question has been ordered to be forfeited to the Government, the order dated 16/03/2005 of the Collector, Anand, confirming the order of the Deputy Collector, and the order dated 27/04/2012 passed by the Secretary (Appeals), rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Collector.

(3.) THE Deputy Collector ordered a Panchnama to be prepared of the land in question, which was done, on 09.06.2000. The Panchnama states that about 26 persons are residing upon the land in question after constructing huts, since the last several years and the petitioner and respondent No.5, to whom the land has been leased, are not in possession of the land. The Deputy Collector came to the conclusion, on the basis of the material on record, that this constitutes a breach of the conditions of the lease as the land is not being used for the purpose for which it had been leased. He,therefore, directed forfeiture of the land in question, to the State Government. This order of the Deputy Collector has been confirmed by the Collector in appeal, by order dated 16.03.2005 which, in turn, has been upheld by the Secretary (Appeals) in revision, by his order dated 27.04.2012, leading to the filing of the petition.