VIKRAMSINH MANUBHA DODIYA Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was allotted the land bearing Survey No.12/1 Paiki admeasuring 440100 square meters situated at Village Nana Kerala, Wadhvan Taluka, Surendranagar District, by virtue of an order dated 19/20091996 for industrial purpose. As per condition No.2 of the said allotment order, the Deputy Town Planning Officer had estimated Rs.4/ per square meter, as market price and as stated in clause ­ (4) in the order of allotment, it was found by the Collector that the land in question is open waste land, which cannot be used for public purpose and that the adjoining land holders having no objections to the allotment of the land to the petitioner, the proper registration should be made.

(2.) THE contention is that, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment order, the petitioner had paid the cost price of the land in question and the 2nd respondent acted arbitrarily without hearing the petitioner and fixed a price at Rs.20/ per square meter without any basis. It was, argued that therefore, the impugned order was bad in law and deserves to be set aside.

(3.) CONSIDERING the above submissions, it appears that before refixation of the price, the petitioner was not heard. That apart, the 2nd respondent, except for saying that the land is situated close to city of Wadhvan and is also nearer to Village Kerala, did not mention about the basis, on which the finding that the land should fetch Rs.20/ per square meter as a market price was rested. Even, in the affidavit, except a very vague statement that the future prospects / development and situation of the land etc., was considered for ascertaining the market price. However, 2nd respondent being a revenue authority, having all the sources at his command to ascertain the market price of the land, referred to it either in the impugned order; or in the affidavit. No doubt, it is true that endevour of the public authorities should be to get best market price, but the market price cannot be a mere guess work. It also appears from the impugned order that it was not the case of the 2nd respondent that the price ascertained by the Deputy Town Planning Officer, was not a market price. Assuming that, that was not the market price and the 2nd respondent had an authority to revise it, it could have been done only after considering the material at his command. It is only on the aforesaid ground that the petition needs to be allowed. 6. Under the above circumstances, the impugned orders at Annexure ­ C and D cannot be sustained. The impugned order at Annexure ­ C came to be confirmed by the 1st respondent and thus has merged into the impugned order at Annexure ­ D and, therefore, the impugned order at Annexure ­ D is set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted.