COLLECTOR Vs. HARIJAN DANA LAKHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has questioned the correctness and legality of the order dtd. 8/9/2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.3254 of 2001 and Special Civil Application No.3258 of 2001. The land bearing Survey Nos. 192, 146, 216, 147, 120, 760, 742, 748, 641 and 300 of Village: Padana, District: Jamnagar were declared as surplus by order of Mamlatdar dtd. 23/11/1980 under Sec. 21 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Ceiling Act') in Case No.41 of 1976. Said order was challenged before the Deputy Collector who by order dtd. 13/9/1982 remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar and he confirmed the same. Respondent No.5 who were the erstwhile owners filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector which came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 4/2/1983 and the revision application preferred before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal against the order dtd. 4/2/1983 was dismissed vide order dtd. 6/2/1985. Special Civil Special Civil Application No.3185 of 1986 filed before this Court challenging the same ended in its dismissal dtd. 25/6/1986 and was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dtd. 23/2/1987 passed in Special Leave Petition No.7592 of 1986. Thus, the claim of respondent No.5 viz. erstwhile owners insofar as declaration of surplus land had attained finality. Thus, the lands vested with the government free from all encumbrances as prescribed under Sec. 29 of the Ceiling Act with effect from

(2.) 12.1988. 2. By virtue of the excess land having vested in the State, an order came to be passed by the Assistant Collector on 31/3/1989 distributing the excess land in favour of the writ applicants which order contemplated that allottees should file an undertaking in accordance with the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 and on such undertaking being filed, the mutation entry was carried in Form No.7/12 in favour of the writ applicants and accordingly, the entries were made and possession of the lands was also handed over to the writ applicants. These aspects were not seriously disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. Against the order of the allotment made in favour of the writ applicants, respondent No.5 filed an appeal before the Collector in Appeal Case No.1 of 1989 which came to be dismissed on 21/8/1989. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 challenged the said order before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department who allowed the revision by order dtd. 15/3/1991. This was challenged by the writ applicants in Special Civil Application No.2710 of 1995 which was allowed by order dtd. 15/2/1993 and the order dtd. 15/3/1991 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department was set aside with a direction to the Special Secretary, Revenue Department to hear the petition and pass fresh orders since the writ applicants contended that they were not joined as parties in the said proceedings. Thereafter the Special Secretary, Revenue Department passed a fresh order on 13/2/2001 by observing that the writ applicants had not paid the occupancy price which they ought to have filed as per the undertaking given under the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972. Being aggrieved by the said order, the writ applicants filed Special Civil Application No.3254 of 2001 and Special Civil Application No.3258 of 2001 challenging the order of Special Secretary, Revenue Department dtd. 13/2/2001, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dtd. 8/9/2016. Hence, this intra-court appeal.

(3.) It is pertinent to observe at this juncture itself that certain lands declared as excess came to be acquired for the benefit of Reliance Industries by issuance of notification dtd. 15/2/1993 under Sec. 4, followed by declaration under Sec. 6 dtd. 18/5/1994, which ultimately resulted in an award being passed on 12/12/1994 and possession of the lands were taken from the writ applicants. The said beneficiary of the acquisition namely, Reliance Industries filed Civil Application No.6333 of 2001 in Special Civil Application No.3254 of 2001 for being impleaded as respondent which came to be dismissed and yet again another Civil Application No.10807 of 2014 was filed which came to be withdrawn as not pressed by the said Reliance Industries. Challenging the order dtd. 8/9/2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.3254 of 2001 and Special Civil Application No.3258 of 2001, respondent No.5 filed Letters Patent Appeal No.360 of 2017 which was withdrawn on 8/3/2017. In fact, two applications viz. Misc. Civil Application No.11108 of 2016 and Misc. Civil Application No.3390 of 2016 were filed seeking review of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.3254 of 2001 and Special Civil Application No.3258 of 2001 which came to be dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dtd. 21/11/2016. These orders have attained finality. The common order passed by the learned Single Judge on 8/9/2016 which has been challenged in this appeal is assailed by the State on the ground that the land which has been acquired for the benefit of Reliance Industries is a government land which had been declared as surplus vacant land under the Ceiling Act and same had been allotted to respondent Nos.1 to 4 for personal cultivation on permanent basis upon payment of occupancy price, which was never paid as reflected in the judgment under challenge and as such contending that original order of granting land in question is ab initio void and non est order passed by appropriate government and hence, he contends that the order of the learned Single Judge which seems to have been passed on the basis of concession made by learned advocate appearing for the writ applicants requires to be set aside. He would further contend that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that revenue records reflected the name of respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein viz. writ applicants. When the order of allotment itself was void, there was no right created in favour of the writ applicants. Hence, he would submit that order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. He would further contend that fixing of the price retrospectively is only to permit the writ applicants to avail benefit of compensation of land though not paid by the allottees of the surplus land and as such the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be quashed and set aside. He would submit that revenue entries made in favour of the writ applicants would not clothe them with any right, particularly when the order dtd. 31/3/1989 has been set aside by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department on 15/3/1991 and as such the revenue entry which was made pursuant to the order of the Assistant Collector, Jamnagar is non est. Hence, he prays for appeal being allowed and Special Civil Application being dismissed.