PRATIMABEN GOPALDAS DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the purchaser of land in question praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 8-10-1990/9-10-1990 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Reveneu Department (Appeal), Government of Gujarat, cancelling the order passed by the Deputy Collector L.N.D.11-Songadh on 29-9-1984 granting permission under Section 73 AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (for short "the Code").

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was running a stone cutting industry known as Bhawani Stone Quory and the petitioner wanted to purchase the lands belonging to Jivanbhai Ukadbhai Gami and others and for that purpose the oroginal owners of the land have applied for sanction to Collector for transfer of the said land to the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 was empowered to grant the permission under Section 73 AA of the Code, as per the notification issued by the Collector, Surat on 30th April, 1984. Even while passing the order dated 29-9-1984, respondent No.4 had also kept in mind the instructions issued by the State Government vide circular dated 23-3-1982 for granting sanction under Section 73 AA of the Code. The petitioner has further submitted that after the purchase of the land, the petitioner has complied with all the conditions imposed by respondent No.4 and the said transaction was entered into by entry No.874/91 dated 3-10-1984 and entry No.875 dated 11-10-1984, following the execution and registration of sale deed with the Sub-Registrar, Vyara on 10-10-1984.

(3.) The petitioner has further submitted that almost after a long period of five years, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 16-10-1989 by the respondent No.2, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the order dated 29-9-1984 passed by the respondent No.4 should not be set aside. The petitioner has filed a detailed reply to the said show cause notice on 24-11-1989. The petitioner has raised the preliminary objection against said reply that the respondent No.2 does not have jurisdiction to take in revision the order passed by the respondent No.4. It was further submitted that the order passed by the respondent No.4 was absolutely legal and valid and it was passed after following due procedure of law. The petitioner has further raised the contention that even on the principles of promissory estopple it is not open to the Government to revise the order passed by the respondent No.4. It was further submitted that the petitioner had registered quory work even prior to the passing of the order and thereafter from 1984 the petitioner had spent a huge amount in staring and developing the quories in the said place. The petitioner has changed her position to her detriment after the said order was passed. The petitioner further submitted that power under Section 211 must be exercised within a reasonable period and the period of five years cannot be considered to be a reasonable period. For this submission, the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Rajul Co-operative Housing Soceity Ltd. V. State of Gujarat reported in 1984 GLH 968, following the judgemen of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat V. Raghav Natha, ., wherein the view was taken by the Court that since the State Government having not exercised powers within a reasonable period, the order passed by the Collector as also by the State Government were quashed and set aside. Even on merits also, the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Collector granting permission under Section 73 AA of the Code is just and proper and no interference is called for. Despite these submission, the respondent No. 2 has passed the order on 9-11-1990 and cancelled the order passed by respondent No.4 on 29-9-1984.