UTTAMBHAI MORARBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Appeal, the appellants have challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition of the appellants.

(2.) The case of the appellants herein is that the appellants have already made representation dated 03rd October, 2011 to the Collector regarding giving permission to restore the use of land bearing Revenue Survey No. 88 admeasuring 10,000 Sq. Meters of village Mubarakpur, Taluka Nizar, District Tapi for Grain yard (KHALWAD) purpose. The representation made to allot the said plot for the said purpose on permanent basis. It seems that the aforesaid plot of land has been allotted by the Government to the landless agricultural labourers. It is the say of the appellants that the appellants are willing to give another land for the benefit of landless agricultural labourers in case the Revenue Survey No. 88 is restored in favour of the appellants. That initially the said prayer was rejected by the Collector and the said order was confirmed by the Secretary on various grounds.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Sunit Shah states that thereafter there is subsequent development. The land, which was offered initially by the appellants was under the charge of the Bank and the said charge has now been removed and the title of the appellants is clear without any charge. The learned Single Judge found that since the land, which is offered by the appellants is under charge of the Bank, the petitioner cannot validly offer the land for the benefit of landless agricultural labourers. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that on one hand the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Collector, which was confirmed by the Secretary, and on the other hand they are asking to Collector to decide their application, which may nullify the earlier orders passed by the Collector and the Secretary. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Shah argued that the appellants are not challenging the earlier order passed by the Collector, which was confirmed by the Secretary in the Appeal. However, subsequent application is preferred in view of subsequent development by which now the appellants are in position to offer the aforesaid land, which was initially offered for the benefit of landless agricultural labourers, which was under the charge of Bank.