PASIBEN CHHAGANBHAI RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code read with Rules for the prayers, inter alia, that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 23.03.1994 at AnnxureB may be quashed and set aside and also the order passed by the Collector in Appeal No. 44 of 1996 dated 30.06.1998 at AnnexureF and also the order passed by the Secretary Appeals dated 19/25.11.2004 at AnnexureG may be quashed and set aside on the grounds stated in the petition.

(2.) THE facts of the present case briefly summarized are that the petitioner has purchased the land in question by registered sale deed in the year 1971. The land in fact was in the name of Panabhai Valabhai Bhangi since 1956 as Pashayat Jagiri Inami land. The Deputy Collector initiated inquiry resulting in the RTS/Sharatbhang/Case No.9/93 at AnnexureB on the ground that the original allottee (owner) has not made the payment of the charges to the government, therefore it has vested in the government. Thereafter, the original owner has transferred the land by the registered saledeed in 1971 and therefore the order was passed for vesting the land for breach of condition in the government, which is the subject matter of all the aforesaid proceedings. The affidavitinreply has been filed by the petitioner and he has also narrated about factual background.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Shri Kishor Prajapati for learned Advocate Shri Mehul Rathod has referred to the papers and submitted that the transaction which has been taken place in the year 1971 is sought to be opened or scrutinized in the year 1993 for the first time by the Deputy Collector by the aforesaid proceeding i.e. RTS/Sharatbhang/Case No.9/93, which has led to further appeal and in the revision. However, he submitted that the contention which has raised that the land in question would vest in the government for non payment of the charges by the original owner as the land was Pashayat Jagiri Inami Land. He, further submitted that in fact the petitioner has paid the charges according to the government resolution dated 11.06.1968. He pointedly referred to some of the clauses of payment stated in the Resolution, which provide for regularization and also the order passed by the High Court (Coram: Jayant Patel, J.) in Civil Application No.12285 of 2007 in Special Civil Application No.2146 of 2005 dated 28.09.2007. He submitted that in fact the High Court had granted installments for the payment of charges to the government and therefore there is no question of breach of any conditions.