SHARADABEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, appellant - original petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge dtd. 9/2/2018 by virtue of which petition was summarily dismissed.

(2.) The facts in brief are that original petitioner is the owner of land bearing Survey No. 147 (old survey no. 434) admeasuring 0/23/78 situated at Village Shiyavada, Taluka : Sanand, District : Ahmedabad and is carrying on agricultural activities for her livelihood. This land in question was purchased from its previous owner named as Arjanbhai Revabhai vide sale deed dtd. 15/4/2013 and by virtue of said registered sale deed, the name of the petitioner has also been mutated and effect was given in the revenue records. It is the case of the appellant - petitioner that respondent no. 2 is the resident of village Shiyavada, has nothing to do with petitioner remotely with the land in question and is involved in activity of creating hurdles, by submitting an application on 7/12/2015 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Gujarat he had made a request to inquire about the construction carried out over the land and also to inquire about the revenue records. Since application was submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Minister through proper channel, same was forwarded to the Sec. Officer and then to the Collector, Ahmedabad and Collector in turn was pleased to dispose of the same. However, again respondent no. 2 made yet another application on 9/3/2016 reiterating the fact and then submitted that petitioner made construction of 49 shops without prior permission of competent authority and as such, requested the authorities to initiate action against petitioner under the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.

(3.) Mr. Percy Kavina, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - petitioner assisted by Mr. Darshit Shah has contended that appellant has never suppressed any fact about construction of 49 shops, but the issue has been confused with regard to the conversion. The fact that land has already been converted into old tenure has not been properly considered by the learned Single Judge and as such, order suffers from vice of non application of mind. It has been submitted that this is not a case of grant of land on certain condition which have been violated. In fact, petitioner had purchased the land in question under a registered sale deed and as such, there is no case of breach of conditions. Further, it has been contended that learned Single Judge proceeded on the footing that appellant has lost before three authorities and was swayed away by the fact that land was new tenure impartible land, as recorded by the revisional authority and this observation contained in paragraph 5 of the order of the learned Single Judge is in conflict with the records. He would submit that subject land has been converted into old tenure, the entry to that effect has also been made which can be seen from page 44-F and as such, finding which has been recorded is quite erroneous. Mr. Percy Kavina, learned Senior Advocate has also submitted that even finding in that regard has also been erroneously recorded by the authorities below and, therefore, instead of summarily disposing of the petition, the authority ought to have called upon to verify the same.