DIPAK G. PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners, have prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dtd. 14/6/2022 passed by the Collector whereby, the application of the petitioner dtd. 28/3/2022 seeking non-agricultural use permission (hereinafter referred to as "NA permission), has been disposed of.

(2.) Mr Apurva S. Vakil, learned advocate submitted that the petitioners, have been struggling since 2018 seeking NA permission. NA permissions, were refused on one or the other ground. It is submitted that the application which was made in the year 2022, has been disposed of, inter alia, on the ground that it is not clear as to whether any proceedings, have been initiated under the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969 or not? Furthermore, the opinion of the Prant Officer which was called for is awaited. It is submitted that had the petitioners being given an opportunity, the petitioners would have submitted/furnished all the details and/or documents; however, without offering any opportunity, the order dtd. 14/6/2022 has been passed which would be in violation of principles of natural justice.

(3.) Mr A. S. Vakil, learned advocate submitted that the issue, is no longer res integra, in view of the judgments of this Court, in the case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat reported in 2019 (4) GLR 2578 as well as judgment in the case of Bhayabhai Vajshibhai Hathalia and anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2012 (2) GLR 1741. In the judgment in the case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat (supra), in paragraph 39, it has been held and observed that the key-word in Sec. 65 is the occupant of the land and it is sufficient for the purposes of Sec. 65, that the person applying for NA Permission is an occupant of the land. It has further been held that it is nowhere stated in the said provision that the applicant should have title or ownership over the land for which NA Permission is sought. It is therefore submitted that it would be impermissible for the Collector, to have gone into the title of the land in question. It is urged that let the Collector, while deciding the NA application, may also consider the judgments of this Court which, may be cited.