SURESHBHAI RATILAL MODI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an applicant in Revision Application No. TEN.BA.316/87 in the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, has approached this Court by way of this petition preferred under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with following years:

(2.) /2/1994 passed by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, where under the revision application of the petitioner was rejected after elaborately adverting to facts and circumstances of the case under which the Tribunal was compelled to reject the same. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Tribunal dated 2/2/1994 the present petition is preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of the petition. 2. The facts as could be seen from the petition deserve to be set out here under in order to appreciate the controversy in question. The petitioner obtained permission from concerned Pranth Officer, Bharuch, under its order dated 5/7/1982 for use of land in question which was intended to be purchased by the petitioner on the conditions mentioned in the permission. The letter of permission is produced at Annexure -A to the petition. Said letter contain conditions that before converting the use of the land in question, the requisite permission under section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was to be obtained and all other permissions that may be required for putting the land to its use be also obtained. The sale deed was to be executed within two months from the date of permission and last condition was to the effect that in case of breach of any of the conditions the permission would automatically liable to be revoked. As per the say of the petitioner, he applied for the N.A. Permission on 13/1/1983 as the six months time was getting over by 4/3/1983. Said N.A. Permission was not granted on account of subject land being reserved as per the Revenue record. The petitioner was successful in obtaining extension of said period of six months which was ultimately expiring on 28/2/1987. The petitioner's application for extension of time was rejected for no reason much less any justifiable reason and petitioner therefore was compelled to approach this Court by way of this petition under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) PETITIONER 's advocate further contended that Tenancy Rules 36 (1A) do provide for extension of period for obtaining permission, however with outer time limit of five years. In the instant case five years was getting over only on 15/8/1987 and thereafter it was indeed unfortunate that this fact was not appreciated by concerned authority and on 28/2/1987 the permission is treated to have been non -est and therefore to that extent there was non application of mind and therefore the petition is required to be allowed.