MANIBEN KANJIBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by order dtd. 15/6/2018 passed by respondent no.4 i.e. learned Secretary in Revision Application No.MVV/JMN/VDD/6/2017, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners alleged that they are owners of the disputed land and that on the said land respondent no.5, Bharvad Gogabhai Devabhai, had constructed a Weigh Bridge in the name and style of "Shivam Weigh Bridge". On that basis a notice came to be issued under Sec. 79-A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code to the petitioners and vide order dtd. 6/2/2014, Deputy Collector forfeited the land in favour of the Government. The same was challenged by the petitioners before learned SSRD, who also confirmed the order passed by learned Deputy Collector. According to the petitioners, they were not knowing that, before construction of weigh bridge, permission is required to be obtained from the competent authority. They have stated that they are ready and willing to remove the construction of weigh bridge at their own cost. It is also stated that they have shown their willingness before the authority below but the authority did not consider the same and passed the impugned order. Therefore, it is prayed to set aside impugned order of learned SSRD.

(3.) The respondents have filed Affidavit-in-reply, wherein it has been contended that as there was unauthorized construction on the land of the petitioners, which was new tenure land, notice was issued under Sec. 79 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. It is also averred that power is vested with Collector under Sec. 79 of the Act for summary eviction of the persons unauthorizedly occupying the land. It is averred that since no permission was obtained for construction of weigh bridge, the authority has properly passed the impugned order under Sec. 79-A of the Code, which is proper, legal and valid. It is also averred that there are two survey numbers 6/1 and 6/2, which were merged under the Town Planning proceedings and allotted Final Plot No.56 and total area of it is 3048 sq.mtrs. It is averred that learned Collector has considered tenure of the land and granted permission only for 1348 sq.mtrs. and the land admeasuring 1348 sq.mtrs. which is forming part of Survey No.6/1, whereas subject land is of Survey No.6/2 admeasuring 0/28/33 sq.mtrs. (which is new tenure land). It is stated that therefore the land for which NA permission is granted and the disputed land over which weigh bridge is constructed are different. It is also averred that contention raised by the petitioners with respect to grant of conversion of land into old tenure and thereafter obtaining NA permission is paradoxical and that itself depicts that the petitioners are well aware about intricacies of law, which are contrary to the contentions raised before learned Collector and learned SSRD. It is also averred that contentions raised and the documents produced before this Court have been raised for the first time and no such plea was ever raised before the revenue authority. 3.1 With regard to judgment of this Court in the case of Bharatbhai Naranbhai Vegda and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others reported in 2016 (2) GLR 1021, upon which reliance is placed for Sec. 75 of Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance, 1949, it is averred that in that case, action was initiated after prolonged delay. It is averred that reliance upon provisions of Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance, 1949 is mis-placed. It is also averred that Sec. 79-A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code provides for summary eviction of person unauthorizedly occupying the land and upon such eviction, the land becomes vacant and vests with the State Government by virtue of Sec. 37 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code. In view of above, it is prayed that present petition may be dismissed.