JIGAR AMRUTLAL THAKKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) The petitioner Mr. Jigar Amrutlal Thakkar has filed both the present Special Civil Applications in respect of two different parcels of land which he has purchased by way of an auction. That thereafter, the petitioner has applied for NA permission to the Collector, Patan, who by impugned order dtd. 2/2/2022 has rejected both the NA application. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the agricultural lands in question were purchased by one Company M/s. Navdurga Industries through its partners for bonafide industrial use. That the said M/s. Navdurga Industries has mortgaged these lands in favour of Punjab National Bank. That due to default in repayment of loan by M/s. Navdurga Industries, the Punjab National Bank had filed recovery proceedings against it and after obtaining decree in its favour, the bank had sold the lands in question through public auction. The petitioner herein has purchased the two parcels of agricultural land in such an auction from the Punjab National Bank. The petitioner being an agriculturist, the name of the petitioner came to be duly mutated in the revenue records as the owner. That the petitioner intended to use the said land for NA purpose, and therefore, made an application dtd. 17/12/2021 for NA permission before the Collector, Patan. By the impugned orders, the said application came to be rejected on the ground that the earlier owner M/s. Navdurga Industries had purchased the lands for bonafide industrial purpose after seeking permission under Sec. 63AA of the Gujarat Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act. But, till date it had not obtained any NA permission or sold the land for said industrial purpose. It was further observed in the order that the said Company has also not taken any permission for the sale of the said land. In view thereof, the application for NA permission of the petitioner came to be rejected. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is the owner and legal occupier of the lands in question. This Court in a catena of decisions has held that for the purpose of grant of NA permission, the Collector should look into whether the applicant is occupant of the land which is being assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture, and second is to ascertain whether such land is being assessed and held for the purpose of agricultural use. He, therefore, submits that the reasons as prescribed in the order dtd. 2/2/2022 rejecting the application of the petitioner are bad in law and ought to be set aside.

(3.) Mr. Adityasinh Jadeja, learned AGP appearing for the respondent authorities submits that in the present case the erstwhile owners M/s. Navdurga Industries had purchased the land after obtaining permission under Sec. 63AA for bonafide industrial purpose. However, the said agricultural lands were never put to such use by the said Company and the said lands came to be sold in auction thereafter recover the dues of the said company. He submits that after going into the revenue records, the Collector, Patan had found that the Company has not started any industrial production on the said land and in one parcel of the land even permission under Sec. 63AA is also not obtained. He, therefore, submits that the learned Collector was well within his powers to record these reasons for rejection of the said NA application of the petitioner. He submits that no interference is called for in the impugned orders and Special Civil Applications be dismissed.