VASANTLAL MORARJI KENIA Vs. RAMILABEN ASHOKBHAI CHHEDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for permission for converting the land for non-agricultural purpose and the said land is bearing Survey No.196 at village Baroi, Taluka Mundra, Dist. Kutch. The said permission was refused as per the decision dated 29-6-1988. Thereafter, it appears that ultimately the petitioner had applied again and as per the order dated 5.11.1990, permission was granted and the lay out plans were approved.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that as per the said lay out plans about 85 plots were shown in the lay out plans. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for revised permission of the lay out plans as per application dated 16.2.1998 and the same also came to be approved and permission was granted as per the order dated 29.3.1998 by Taluka Development Officer. As per the said revised lay out plan as per the petitioner, ten additional plots were included in the lay out plans. Against the said decision of approval of revised lay out plans, respondents No.1 and 2 herein preferred revision before the State Government under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Code").

(3.) Upon hearing Mr.Dagli, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Vora, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, Mr.Jaswant Shah, learned Counsel for respondents No.3 and 4, Mr.Gajendra Singh for Mr.Munshaw, learned Counsel for respondent No.5 and Mr.Dipen Desai, learned AGP for respondent No.6, it appears that it was submitted by the petitioner herein who was opponent in the revision before the State Government that out of the land in question, which is included in the revised lay out plan, certain plots are already sold by the registered sale deed and the possession of the same is also handed over. There is no dispute on the point that those persons, who have purchased the plot forming part of revised lay out plans ( qua additional plots ) were not impleaded as parties by the petitioner before the State Government respondents No.1 and 2 herein. It appears that the State Government in the proceedings of the revision without considering the said aspects has proceeded without examination of the merits of the case on the ground that there was no authority with the Taluka Panchayat and has ultimately allowed the revision. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring this petition.