RIKHAVDEV TIRTHRAM SHARMA Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23.10.2000 passed by the Revisional Authority ­ Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat by which the Revisional Authority has dismissed the said revision application preferred by the petitioner by confirming the order dated 11.08.1998 passed by the Collector, Bharuch cancelling the non agriculture use permission granted earlier with respect to the land bearing survey No.168 paikee admeasuring 24281 sq. meter situated at Ankleshwar.

(2.) FACTS leading to the present petition in nutshell are as follows: That the land bearing survey No.168 paikee admeasuring 24281 sq. meter situated at Ankleshwar was agricultural land. The petitioner submitted an application in the year 1994 for nonagriculture use permission and by order dated 07.02.1994, Collector, Bharuch granted the nonagriculture use permission on the conditions mentioned in the said order more particularly on condition that the petitioner to initiate the construction within the period of six months and complete the construction within the period of three years from the date of the order. It appears that the petitioner could not put up the construction within the stipulated time stated in the said application and even the construction was not begun. Proceedings were initiated by the Collector, Bharuch for breach of condition of the nonagriculture use permission order and by notice dated 29.03.1996, petitioner was called upon to showcause why for breach of condition of the nonagriculture use permission order, the nonagriculture use permission be not cancelled. That the petitioner replied to the same by his reply dated 20.05.1996 explaining the reason for not putting up the construction. It was also contended that as such the land has been subplotted into 113 plots out of which 49 plots are already sold and with respect to the remaining 64 plots it was requested to extend the period for a further period of one year. That by order dated 21.06.1996 the Collector, Bharuch imposed the penalty to the extent of 40 pats i.e. Rs.77,699/. That thereafter the petitioner submitted the application dated 02.08.1996 to reduce the penalty to the extent of 10 pats. It appears that no order was passed on the said application however, thereafter, by communication dated 30.09.1997, the petitioner was called upon to deposit the aforesaid amount of penalty failing which further proceedings to cancel the non agriculture use permission shall be initiated. That petitioner again submitted the application dated 11.11.1997 to reduce the penalty to the extent of 10 pats. It appears that no orders were passed on the aforesaid applications either for extension of time and/or reducing the penalty, however, by order dated 11.08.1998, the Collector, Bharuch passed an order cancelling the nonagriculture use permission dated 07.02.1994 for breach of conditions imposed vide order dated 07.02.1994. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 07.02.1994 passed by the Collector, Bharuch, petitioner preferred revision application before the State Government ­ Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat by impugned order dated 08.11.2000, the revisional authority dismissed the said revision application confirming the order dated 11.08.1998 passed by the Collector, Bharuch. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the revisional authority, the petitioner has preferred the present special civil application under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) TODAY , when the present petition is taken up for final hearing, Shri Dhirendra Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner has stated at the Bar that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount of penalty imposed by order dated 21.06.1996 i.e. Rs.77,699/ on 08.02.2001. It is further stated that the entire land in question has been subplotted and sold to other persons and they have already put up the construction. The learned advocate for the petitioner has requested to consider the above subsequent development. It is submitted that as such the petitioner is ready and willing to pay interest even at the rate of 9% on Rs.77,699/ from 21.06.1996.